Satya Prakash Mittal vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6597 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 9th December, 2014

+      W.P.(C) No.2866/2014 & CMs No.5937/2014 (for stay) & 5939/2014
       (for filing additional documents).

    SATYA PRAKASH MITTAL                             ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Vinay J. Hegde & Mr. P.K. Bansal,
                           Advs.
                          Versus
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                           Digvijay Rai, Mr. Jaiveer, Ms. Ruby
                           Singh, Mr. K.D. Chopra & Ms. Nehga
                           Gupta, Advs. for AAI.
                           Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                           K. Raghavacharuvulyu, Mr. Kailash
                           Pandey, Ms. Arunima Pal & Mr. Ranjeet
                           Singh, Advs. for R-3,6&8.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a

Public Interest Litigation (PIL), (i) impugns the Request for Qualification

(RFQ) issued in August, 2012, the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued in

September, 2013 and the Award of Concession granted in October, 2013 by the

respondent no.2 Airports Authority of India (AAI) to the respondent no.5

Travel Food Services Chennai Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.6 Travel Food

Services Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. to develop, operate and maintain the Food and

Beverages Outlets at Chennai and Kolkata Airports respectively; and, (ii) seeks

a direction to the respondent no.4, Chairman, AAI to not implement or give

effect to the said contracts in any manner whatsoever.

2. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner, carrying on business in

computer designing and printing work at Delhi, that the RFQ and the RFP were

tailor made for the respondents no.5 & 6; that though for the sake of showing

competition, the respondents no.8 & 9 M/s. Travel Food Services Pvt. Ltd. and

M/s. Devyani International Pvt. Ltd. respectively also participated but the

respondents no.5,6,8 & 9 have common Directors and shareholders; that the

respondent no.3 Chief Vigilance Officer, AAI and the respondent no.7 Mr. J.N.

Bhavani Prasad, the External Independent Monitor, AAI had in November,

2013 made a recommendation of termination of the contracts with the

respondents no.5 & 6 for the reason of the same having been awarded contrary

to the prescribed procedure, but no action was taken.

3. On a reading of the petition we were intrigued as to how the petitioner, a

resident of Delhi and in no way connected with the subject matter of the

petition, got interested therein and collected such detailed information and

documents as pleaded in and filed with the petition, with respect to the subject

contracts. Though the petitioner pleaded to have become aware of the facts

through media reports but neither any particulars of the media nor any copy of

the reports from which the petitioner had gathered the details, were pleaded /

filed. More so, when the petitioner, in the past had not filed any PIL. We were

therefore suspicious and felt that the petition, rather than in public interest, was

in the interest of either the jilted competitors of the respondents no.5 & 6 or the

persons affected by the award of contracts aforesaid to the respondents no.5

and 6.

4. We also entertained doubt as to whether it would be appropriate for this

Court to exercise territorial jurisdiction, in the matter of grant of contracts with

respect to Airports at Chennai and Kolkata.

5. When the petition came up first on 7th May, 2014, the senior counsel for

the respondent no.2 AAI and the senior counsel for the respondents no.5&6

appeared and informed that similar issue as raised in this petition had been

considered by the High Court of Madras and the writ petition had been

dismissed. We, on that date also enquired from the counsel for the petitioner of

our said doubts.

6. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time. Arguments on

the maintainability of the petition were finally heard and judgment reserved.

7. The counsel for the respondents no.5 & 6 handed over in the Court, a

copy of the W.P.(C) No.6202/2014 dated 25th February, 2014 filed in the High

Court of Madras by one M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., copy of the

Rejoinder dated 9th April, 2014 of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to

the counter affidavit filed therein by the AAI and the orders dated 28th

February, 2014 and 29th April, 2014 of the High Court of Madras in the said

writ petition. A perusal of the said documents shows the said M/s P.K.

Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to have filed the said writ petition challenging

the action of the AAI, of terminating the license granted to it for operating a

restaurant on the second floor of the Chennai Airport, also on the ground of the

Award of Concession granted to the respondent no.5 (and owing whereto the

license given to M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. was being terminated)

being illegal. The senior counsel for the respondents no.5&6 has drawn

attention to the rejoinder filed by M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to the

counter affidavit of AAI in the said proceedings to demonstrate that the same

grounds as urged in the present petition were taken therein also. It is further

demonstrated that certain portions / paragraphs of the petition filed before this

Court are verbatim same as the portions of the said rejoinder. It is yet further

shown that M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. in the said rejoinder also

disclosed knowledge of the present PIL filed by the petitioner herein. It is yet

further shown that while the said rejoinder is dated 9 th April, 2014, the petition

before this Court though is dated 2nd April, 2014 but was filed on 6th May,

2014. The said petition was disposed of by the Madras High Court upon the

relief claimed therein being restricted to the said M/s P.K. Hospitality Services

Pvt. Ltd. being not dispossessed save by due process of law. It is argued that all

this shows that the petitioner and M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. were /

are acting in concert in as much as M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. on

9th April, 2014 i.e. even prior to filing of the present petition on 6 th May, 2014

could not have known about the pendency of the present petition. The senior

counsel for the respondents no.5 & 6 in this regard also showed the appearance

of Advocates in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Golden

Chariot Airport (2010) 10 SCC 422 where the Advocate appearing for the

petitioner herein had appeared for Golden Chariot Airport having interest

similar to that of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. The senior counsel

for the respondents no.5&6 also handed over in Court a copy of the paper book

of SLP (C) No.20805/2014 filed by the petitioner herein in the Supreme Court

aggrieved from the non-consideration on 16th July, 2014 by this Court of the

application of the petitioner for interim relief restraining the implementation of

the Concession awarded by the respondent no.2 AAI to the respondents no.5 &

6. We may record that the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 19 th

August, 2014.

8. It appears that the said matter of M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.

ultimately came to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.24994/2014 and

which was dismissed on 15th September, 2014 giving a month‟s time to M/s

P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. to deliver vacant possession of the premises.

9. It is argued that the present proceedings are at the behest of M/s P.K.

Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. in an attempt to retain possession inspite of the

petition filed by it in the Madras High Court being dismissed till the Supreme

Court.

10. The counsel for the petitioner though not able to controvert all the

aforesaid, meekly / faintly contended that the present petition being ready on

2nd April, 2014 advance copies thereof were served on respondents no.10 & 11

i.e. Airlines Operators Committee, Chennai and Kolkata who may have

supplied copies of the same to M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd.

11. After the close of hearing and judgment was reserved, the senior counsel

for the respondents no.5 & 6 handed over copies of the following judgments

"on false and frivolous Public Interest Litigation" and on minimal interference

of Courts in award of contracts by the State:-

(i) Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 609;

(ii) Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka (2012)

8 SCC 216;

(iii) State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC

402;

(iv) Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P)

Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 138;

(v) Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1

SCC 590; and,

(vi) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349.

12. In the face of the foresaid, we need not say more. However our

suspicions are strengthened that the petition though filed as a PIL, is motivated

by private interests. We refrain from expressing any categorical opinion as it

may not be appropriate to do so without full fledged enquiry. However the said

suspicion and the other doubts noticed by us above, are enough for us to not

deem it appropriate to entertain this petition. We accordingly dismiss the

petition with costs of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner payable to the respondent

no.2 AAI within four weeks of today.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 09, 2014 „pp‟