We have heared Mr. R.M. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate for respondent No. 1, 2 & 3. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 18.1.2002 whereby the Single Judge disposed of W. P. (C)No. 1974 / 2000 and W. P. (C) 23757 2000 alongwith FAO No. 49/2002, FAO No. 66/2000 and R. F. A. 49/2000. 3. The matter relates to running of the Airport Restaurant at Borjhar Airport. The appellant before us is running the said restaurant by virtue of/an agreement, between the parties since 1978. Some litigations were going on in between the parties and Title suit No. 63/88 was filed and thereafter the matter came up before this Court in MAF of 82 of 87 and vide order dated 1.7.91 this Court provided : "The parties shall settle their dispute by Arbitration inconformity with the Arbitration Clause in the agreement dated 1.10.1981. The petitioner shall continue to run the Restaurant under existing terms and conditions including the licence fees as on today until final award by Arbitration." 4. In terms of the said direction Sri. K. Teckchandani was appointed as an Arbitrator and the award was given by him which was subsequently made rule of Court. Another Title Suit being T.S. 42 of 1994 was instituted and some Misc. Case were filed therein against which the appellant preferred FAO No. 49/2000. FAO No. 667 2000 was preferred by the respondent Airport Authority of India against the order dated 15.5.2000. The RFA No. 49/2000 was also filed by the Airport Authority of India. 5. After the award of the Arbitrator, the respondent Airport Authority of India, floated tender for granting licence for operating a restaurant at the Borjhar Airport. The said N.I.T was challenged by the present appellant by filing W.P.(C) No. 1974/2000. It was also challenged by one Guddi Enterprises who filed W. P. (C) 2375/2000. As all the matters were interconnected they were heard analogously without any objections from either side and they were disposed of by this common judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant had no objection for analogous hearing in the matter but however, it is submitted that the Civil matter could not have been disposed of alongwith the Writ petition. As all the matters were interconnected they were heard analogously without any objections from either side and they were disposed of by this common judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant had no objection for analogous hearing in the matter but however, it is submitted that the Civil matter could not have been disposed of alongwith the Writ petition. Sri Chatterjee, has however submitted that the petitioner has two rights, one is the Civil right and the other arising out of the Civil Rule whereby the floating of the Tender has been challenged. 6. So far the direction of the learned single Judge regarding Arbitration is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant have already approached the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is also submitted that the appellant has got a Civil right to continue as a licencee as they are operating the restaurant since 1978 under a licence. As per the appellant own / admission the Civil right to continue is till 3Ist May, 2002. Sri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that at this stage the respondents are not challenging the said Civil right and the respondent are agreeable to allow the appellant to continue as licencee till the said date of 31.5.2002, and any action as per the N. I. T Will be made effective after 31.5.2002 only. In view of the above submissions, the plea of Civil right need not detain us as the appellant is allowed to continue his said Civil right till expiry of the period claimed by him i.e; 31.5.2002. 7. As stated above, the respondent authorities issued N. I.T. dated 16.4.1998 and the said N. I. T. was challenged in Civil Rule No. 2159 of 1998, the learned single Judge allowed the Civil Rule and quashed the said N. I. T. and the matter was taken to W.A. No. 233 of 1998. The said Writ appeal was disposed of on the following terms :- "The counsel for the parties are agreed that this Writ appeal be decided with the observation that the Airport Authority of India, safdarjung Airport, New Delhi would be entitled to invite N.I.T. in accordance with the law and the relevant Rules and that the same done at the earliest. It is further agreed that all the parties including the respondent would be entitled to apply for allotment of contract. The Airport Authority of India would give wide publication in the local newspapers as well as National Newspapers. In accordance with the agreement arrived at between the parties, the present writ appeal is disposed of." 8. The present appellant thereafter filed a review application stating that they were not a party to the Writ Appeal and the decision passed in Writ Appeal will effect them adversely and as such the order needs to be reviewed. At this stage Sri Choudhury has submitted that the present appellant and the Guddi Enterprise in the above mentioned petition are hand in glove and interested in delaying the matter. The Review Petition filed by the appellant was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.4.2000 whereby the Review application was dismissed. Hence in pursuance of the directions of the Division bench of this Court in W. A. No. 233 of 1998 as quoted above, the respondent Airport Authority of India floated NIT dated 15.3.2000. The said NIT was challenged by the present appellant and Guddi Enterprises as stated above. The grounds of challenge as seen from the Writ petitions are:- 1. The NIT does not prescribe a date of commencement. 2. The details of area was not mentioned. 3. The terms are onerous. 4. There was extraneous considerations in fixing the terms and conditions. 9. So far the commencement is concerned, the NIT itself provides that the period of licence shall be for three years from the date specified in the award letter in the licence or the handing over the premises, whichever is later. It is submitted by Sri Choudhury that in view of the litigation between the parties, specific date could not be given and it was made effective from the date of handing over possession, we find no ambiquity in the above matter. As regards the ground No. 2 the agreement of licence which is a part of the tender document clearly provides that the area measuring 745.28 Sq. mts shall be provided at the L.G.B. Airport, 1st floor Terminal bulding. 10. The basic point of challenge of the appellant is that :- "The impugned NIT is the repeatation of the 1998 NIT which was already held by this Hon'ble Court as illegal and was thereby set aside. mts shall be provided at the L.G.B. Airport, 1st floor Terminal bulding. 10. The basic point of challenge of the appellant is that :- "The impugned NIT is the repeatation of the 1998 NIT which was already held by this Hon'ble Court as illegal and was thereby set aside. Apart from this, in the present NIT a further coercive condition has been imposed in the name of eligibility such as experience of running 3 Star Hotel having no co- relation with that of running a restaurant and more particularly the Guwahati Airport Restaurant. The appellant has been running it even today continuously since the year 1978 with the terms and conditions as provided in the agreement dated 1.10.1981 which admittedly has not been terminated by A.A.I. The appellant is holding the full confidence of AAI during the long period of running the said Airport Restaurant by increasing the Licence Fee every 3 years with the process of offer and acceptance so far as licence is concerned. The purported eligibility terms has been inflicted only with a malafide intention to deprive the appellant from doing their business which, is a clear violation of the Division Bench order passed in an appeal against the previous writ petition. The Division Bench clearly directed even on consent of AAI that the Writ petitioner including all the concerned parties in the said Appeal would be entitled to apply for allotment of contract." 11. As regards the stipulation of experience of running Three Star Hotel is concerned, the learned single Judge after perusal of the Airport Commercial Manual observed that the terms and conditions quoted in the NIT dated 15.3.2000 are not contrary to the standard norms. Therefore, the NIT cannot be faulted with. Sri Chatterjee raised his objections that he had no occasion to go through the Commercial Manual. A copy of the said provision was made available to Sri Chatterjee and we have also perused the same. It reads as follows :- "Details of contract, experiencee and eligibility criteria and the requirement of security deposits. Experinece/ Security Eligibility/ Deposits Selection (in terms criteria ofLF.) SI. Nature of contract Periodicity No. (Years) 0.1 Executive Lounge 03/extendable Five Star/ Six months to 05 years 4Star Hotel's space on merit. only/reputed licence fee business plus mini-houses, mum gua-ranteed, royalty rolling Bank guarantee Appendix-!) As per Appendix-1 0.2 a) Restaurants 03-05 Yrs. Experinece/ Security Eligibility/ Deposits Selection (in terms criteria ofLF.) SI. Nature of contract Periodicity No. (Years) 0.1 Executive Lounge 03/extendable Five Star/ Six months to 05 years 4Star Hotel's space on merit. only/reputed licence fee business plus mini-houses, mum gua-ranteed, royalty rolling Bank guarantee Appendix-!) As per Appendix-1 0.2 a) Restaurants 03-05 Yrs. 3 to 5 Star 4 months/ Snack Bar Hotels or the 6 months (inside the termi- best in the nal building) down-town 4 months/ 6 months b) Snack Bars ,nclu- 03-05 Yrs. ding Kisks imm- ediately outside the terminal buil- ding or in front of terminal building or in close proxi-mity or in the buil-ding itself but on the city side and the catering facilities in Cargo terminals. 4 months/ 6 months As per Appendix-1 c) Snack Bar/Kiosks 01-03Yrs /Canteen located at a distance away from the terminal building. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent authority have also produced before us the relevant file wherein the above policy decision was taken, wherein the Commercial Advisory committee meeting held on 8.3.2000 resolved that the eligiblity criteria for the contending terms shall be 3 star or equivalent Hotel having experience of more than three years. The relevant file also contains number of correspondence and copies of the Tender notification of the various Airports issued by the Govt. of India, wherein similar criteria was laid down. In some other bigger cities it has been restricted to 5 star Hotels only. On the other hand the respondents have produced a copy of the NIT issued by the Airport Director Delhi whereby licence for operating snack bar and restaurant at the Indira Gandhi International Airport was called for, wherein the stipulation regarding three Star Hotel was not provided for. The licence was for snack bar and restaurant in the Visitors Lounge only and as such it is not relevant. Moreover the laying down of requirements in the NIT is the prerogative of the authority floating the tender as they know better about the requirements. The intending tenderers cannot influence or cannot insist upon certain eligibility criteria. Sri Choudhury submits that in the year 1978 Borjhar Airport at Guwahati was a small Airport, catering to a small group of persons. Moreover the laying down of requirements in the NIT is the prerogative of the authority floating the tender as they know better about the requirements. The intending tenderers cannot influence or cannot insist upon certain eligibility criteria. Sri Choudhury submits that in the year 1978 Borjhar Airport at Guwahati was a small Airport, catering to a small group of persons. He has produced records to show that it has been upgraded to International Airport and International Flight are going to commence in the month of April 2002, and as such the authorities being aware of the upgradation in the status of the Airport, were of the view that the restaurant should be managed and operated by a concerned having minimum three years experience of running a three Star Hotel. We find absolutely no material that the above stipulation is in any way arbitrary or in no way co-related for the purpose for which it is stipulated. 13. Sri Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has however submitted that the impugned NIT is violative of the terms given by the Bench in earlier WA No. 233/ 1998. The order as quoted above, provided : "It is however agreed that all the parties including the respondent would be entitled to apply for allotment of contract" The right to apply was given to all including the respondent Guddi Enterprises of which we may also include the present appellant. There was however no stipulation that even if the present appellant or M/s Guddi Enterprises would not meet the eligibility criteria, their cases are required to be considered moreover the observation was that the NIT has to be invited in accordance with the law and the relevant rules and the same be done at the earliest. 14. The present NIT was floated within a month of the said order and as held by the learned single Judge it is in accordance with the law and relevant rules. We find absolutely no basis for issuing the directions to the respondent that the appellant's case may be considered beyond the terms of the above rules as because they were running the restaurant for the last 23 years. 15. In view of what has been stated above there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and as such this Appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission hearing itself.