FLEMINGO DUTYFREE SHOP PRIVATE LIMITED NASRIN SULTANA vs AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR — WPA/10962/2026
Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0211902026
Next Hearing
13th May 2026
Filing Number
WPA/10827/2026
Filing Date
08-05-2026
Registration No
WPA/10962/2026
Registration Date
08-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Residuary ( 26 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FLEMINGO DUTYFREE SHOP PRIVATE LIMITED NASRIN SULTANA
Respondent(s)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR
NUANCE GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
NUANCE GROUP(INDIA) PVT. LTD.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
NEW MOTION
MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-05-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 13-05-2026 | MOTION |
Orders
CASE SUMMARY: WPA 10962/2026 The Calcutta High Court dismissed Flemingo Dutyfree Shop's writ petition challenging the tender evaluation process for duty-free outlets at Kolkata airport. The court found no arbitrariness, mala fides, or patent illegality in the Airport Authority's decision to permit Nuance Group to resubmit deficient documents or its deviation from the CPP Portal for communications. The court held that the RFP's Clause 7.8.5 expressly authorized seeking clarifications, that the same procedure was uniformly applied to all bidders, and that judicial intervention in procurement decisions requires demonstrating palpable impropriety—a threshold not met here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: WPA 10962/2026 The Calcutta High Court dismissed Flemingo Dutyfree Shop's writ petition challenging the tender evaluation process for duty-free outlets at Kolkata airport. The court found no arbitrariness, mala fides, or patent illegality in the Airport Authority's decision to permit Nuance Group to resubmit deficient documents or its deviation from the CPP Portal for communications. The court held that the RFP's Clause 7.8.5 expressly authorized seeking clarifications, that the same procedure was uniformly applied to all bidders, and that judicial intervention in procurement decisions requires demonstrating palpable impropriety—a threshold not met here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts