Bombay High Court
Aurea Aviation Pvt Ltd vs Government Of Maharashtra Through ... on 5 March, 2024
2024:BHC-OS:3610-DB
402-WP.1014.2024
Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2024
Aurea Aviation Pvt. Ltd. } Petitioner
Versus
Government of Maharashtra, }
through Director of Aviation }
& Anr. } Respondents
Mr. Maulik Bhansali i/b. Jain Law Partners
LLP for the petitioners.
Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP for respondents 1 & 2.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE: 5th MARCH 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per the Chief Justice)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter has been taken up for final adjudication and disposal.
3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner-company challenges the
decision of respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's bid,
submitted pursuant to the Tender ID No. 2023_MADC_904985
(Ref No. MADC/DCA/Empanelment/Hiring of Aircraft), has been
rejected on the ground that the petitioner-company was
debarred by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and hence, the
petitioner-company did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria.
402-WP.1014.2024
4. The submission of Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the AAI, by means of an order dated 6 th June
2023, debarred the petitioner-company and provided that the
petitioner-company shall not be eligible to participate in any
tender or RFP issued by the Authority during a period of three
years w.e.f. 8th May 2023. The said order of debarment was
challenged by the petitioner before Hon'ble Delhi High Court by
instituting Writ Petition (C) No. 10681 of 2023, wherein an
interim order was passed on 17th August 2023 providing therein
that as an interim measure, the order dated 6 th June 2023 will
not prejudice the petitioner from participating in any other
tenders or RFPs for ground handling services floated by the AAI.
Certain typographical corrections were sought in the said order,
which were allowed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by means of
an order dated 13th September 2023.
5. It is, thus, the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of the interim order dated 17th August
2023, as corrected by means of the order dated 13 th September
2023, the petitioner was eligible to participate in the subject
tender and hence, the technical bid of the petitioner-company
has illegally been rejected. The learned counsel further stated
that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-company before the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has finally been disposed of by means
of an order dated 29th November 2023, whereby, the Court
declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the fact that
Arbitration proceedings had been already initiated. The Hon'ble
Delhi High Court, by the said order dated 29 th November 2023
directed the AAI to expedite the process and ensure that the
dispute is resolved at the earliest under the dispute resolution
clause, failing which, an Arbitrator shall be appointed to resolve
402-WP.1014.2024
the dispute within a period of eight weeks. The Hon'ble Delhi
High Court has also made it clear that the issue of debarring the
petitioner shall also be considered under the dispute resolution
clause and if not, by the Arbitral Tribunal.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the
interim order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, rejection
of the technical bid of the petitioner cannot be justified.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel
representing respondent no. 2-Maharashtra Airport
Development Company Limited has argued that the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court, by passing the order dated 29 th November
2023 had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground
that the Arbitration proceedings had already been resorted to
and in view of the final disposal of the writ petition by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the interim order dated 17 th August
2023, as corrected by means of order dated 13th September
2023, is not operative as on today and hence, there is no
illegality in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner-company.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find force
in the submission made by learned counsel representing
respondent no. 2. Having perused the order dated 29 th
November 2023 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the order of debarment passed by the AAI was
finally disposed of, it is abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground
that the Arbitration proceedings had already been taken
recourse to. Thus, the interim order passed earlier on 17th
August 2023, as corrected by means of the order dated 13 th
402-WP.1014.2024
September 2023, stood merged with the final order dated 29th
November 2023. In absence of any specific direction by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court about deferment of the order of
debarment dated 6th June 2023, we do not find any substance in
the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that
on account of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court, the order of debarment dated 6th June 2023 could
not have been taken into consideration by respondent no. 2
while evaluating the technical bid of the petitioner-company. As
a matter of fact, once the Hon'ble Delhi High Court declined to
entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner-
company had already invoked the remedy based on the
arbitration and the dispute resolution clause, the appropriate
course available to the petitioner-company may have been to
resort to the various provisions available under the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 for availing reliefs as an interim
measure, if such a remedy was available under law.
9. It is also to be noticed that in a petition filed by the
petitioner-company under section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has already appointed the third
Arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned decision. The writ petition, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed.
11. However, we make it clear that dismissal of the writ
petition will not prejudice the remedies which may be available
to the petitioner under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
or any other law.
402-WP.1014.2024
12. Rule is discharged.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
SALUNKE (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
