Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of two Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 523/2000 and 549/2000 directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25/09/2000 whereby the writ petitions seeking quashing of the notice inviting tenders dated 22/02/1999 issued by the first respondent- airports Authority of India for allotment of space for running ISD/std/pco booths at various sites at Indira Gandhi International Airport, have been dismissed. ( 2 ) SOME time in the year 1993 the appellants, sponsored by the second respondent-Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short m. T. N. L. ), under the 1982 Scheme for unemployed educated youths, were allocated space by the airports Authority of India (for short a. A. I. ) on licence basis at the domestic, international and cargo terminals of Indira Gandhi International Airport (for short i. G. I. A. ) for installing telephones and for managing and operating STD/isd/pco booths. ( 3 ) ON 22/02/1999, the Airports Authority of India issued notice inviting tenders for grant of licences for operating STD/isd/pco booths at various locations at IGIA. The last date for submission of tenders was 15/03/1999. The appellants, apprehending the termination of their licences and their consequential eviction from the locations allotted to them at the IGIA, filed writ petitions calling in question the aforesaid notice on various counts. The learned Single Judge not finding any merit in the writ petitions dismissed the same on 25/09/2000. While dismissing the writ petitions the learned Single Judge held that the period for which the licences were granted had expired and the first respondent had an indisputable right to invite fresh tenders. The claim of the appellants that they had a legitimate expectation to continue as licensees at the site was also not accepted. The learned Single Judge did not find the action of the first respondent in inviting tenders as arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair. It was also found that the action of the first respondent was in conformity with the provisions of Section 11 of the Airports authority Act which requires the Airports Authority of India to act in consonance with business principles . ( 4 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. As per the terms of the licence deeds, the licences of the appellants were liable to be terminated at any point of time by giving one month s clear notice. In view of this condition which had been. incorporated in the agreements, we fail to appreciate as to how the licensees could have any legitimate expectation to continue as licensees for all times to come. It is not disputed that the periods for which the licences were granted have expired. Therefore, none of the appellants can claim any right over the spaces which were provided to them at the IGIA for running STD/isd/pco booths after the expiry of the period for which the licences were granted. The licensees cannot be allowed to claim permanent rights to run STD/isd/pco booths at the sites. ( 5 ) IT is significant to note that pursuant to the notice of the first respondent inviting tenders, the appellants could have submitted their tenders but they failed to avail of the opportunity. The action of the respondent in inviting tenders is in keeping with the principles of justice and fair play. It is well-settled that while awarding contracts the Authorities must not act arbitrarily. Their decision is required to be in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. They cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the expense of the State. Such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. Contract can be awarded only after inviting tenders or bids as otherwise it will amount to giving state largesse at the discretion of the concerned Authority [see Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M and N Publications Limited and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 445 ; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jandk, (1980) 4 SCC 1 ; Fertilizer Corpn. Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 ; Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 ; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 ; Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 ; Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. ( 6 ) KEEPING in view the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the action of the first respondent inviting tenders for allotting the sites for running STD/ isd/pco booths at the IGIA cannot be faulted. ( 7 ) MR. V. K. Shali, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that at this stage the petitioners should be allowed to submit their tenders in response to the notice inviting tenders for grant of licences for operating STD/isd/pco booths at the IGIA, It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the first respondent that after the receipt of the tenders from various parties, technical and financial bids were opened on March 23,1999 and 26/03/1999 respectively, in the presence of the parties. In support of their submission they have produced before us the requisite record. Considering the fact that technical and financial bids have been opened and the last date for submitting the tenders is long past, we have to decline the request of the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in these appeals and, accordingly, the same are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.