Kerala State Industrial ... vs Airports Authority Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 8827 Ker

WP(C).No.28805 OF 2019(A)
                                  1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

  WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.28805 OF 2019(A)


PETITIONER/S:

                KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
                ST.JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING COTTON HILL,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MR.JAYARAJ.P.V.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
                SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
                SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
                SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
                SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
                JAIMOHAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS AIRPORT DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM
                INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008,
                KERALA.

      2         AIRPORT DIRECTOR,
                AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM
                INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008,
                KERALA.

                R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM
                R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.03.2021, THE COURT ON 17.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019




                                 P.V.ASHA, J.
                      ---------------------------------
                           W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019
                     ----------------------------------
                   Dated this the 17th day of March, 2021.

                                          JUDGMENT

The Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Limited has

filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the enhancement of

license fee for the Air Cargo Complex ordered by the

respondents.

2. As per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 30.04.1979

Government of Kerala declared that the petitioner would be

the agency for running the Air Cargo Complex in the State.

The said order was issued in implementation of the policy

decision of the Govt. of India to set up "Integrated Air

Cargo Complexes" in each State. The Government decided to

establish the same at Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that

thereafter the petitioner extended its operation to the

Airports at Kochi and Kozhikkode in 1985 and 1998

respectively. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order petitioner and 2nd

respondent entered into Ext.P2 agreement on 01.10.1997 and

license was granted to the petitioner for using the plot of

land having an extent of 3505 sq.mtr referred to therein

for a period of 5 years from 06.03.1997 to 05.03.2002 for W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

the purpose of cargo activities. The license fee payable

was fixed as Rs.1,99,785/- in each year which should be

paid in advance. The said fee was subject to revision by

the authority at an interval of every three years or as

approved by the board of International Airports Authority

of India from time to time. The license agreement continued

to be extended from time to time. As per Ext.P3 agreement,

the period of license was extended from 07.10.2010 to

31.03.2012 and the license fee was enhanced to Rs.173.50 sq

mtr and thereafter as per Ext.P4 communication dated

01.04.2014 to Rs.243/- per sq.mtr per annum for the period

from 01.04.2014.Immediately thereafter the license fee was

again enhanced to Rs.1,360/- per sq.mtr per annum as per

Ext.P5 letter dt.27.01.2015. It is stated that as per

Ext.P6 letter dated 25.03.2019 the Minister for Industries

and Information Technology, Govt. of Kerala wrote to the

Minister for Civil Aviation, Govt. of India requesting its

intervention in the matter and seeking exemption from

paying the enhanced license fee for unpaved land occupied

by it. But as per Ext.P7 letter dated 19.06.2015 the

petitioner was informed by the respondents that they have

adopted a transparent process and methodology and revised

land license fee base rate based on the current Government W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

circle rate/ready reckoner rate applicable at various

airports. The Government circle rate/ready reckoner rates

all over the country have increased manifold due to

revaluation/reassessment of land cost by the Government in

view of steep hike of rental value in open market and after

considering various aspects. It is further stated that the

revision of base rate was worked out and decided for

implementation after a period of 6 years. It was stated

that the revised license fee with effect from 01.10.2014 is

uniformly applicable to all concessioners at the airports.

Correspondence between the Ministers of the State and

Centre continued even thereafter as seen from Ext.P8

letter. As per Ext.P9 letter the petitioner had taken up

the matter with the Government requesting for intervention

in the matter for waiver of the enhanced license fee. In

Ext.P10 letter dated 05.07.2018 the respondents again

enhanced the license fee to Rs.1,575/- per sq.mtr. per

annum. In this letter it was stated that the normal

applicable license fee would be the base for considering

any concession to Government agencies or other agencies as

per policy of AAI irrespective of the location of allotted

site and 50% of the normal rate of license fee/land rent

for the years from 2018-19 to 2021-22 are applicable for W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

the land allotted to Government agencies including Defence

at Trivandrum Airport. Thereupon the petitioner requested

for 50% concession applicable to Government agency as per

Ext.P11 letter dated 10.08.2018. In Ext.P7 letter the

petitioner stated that in the light of Ext.P1 Govt. order

it is a Government agency and hence eligible for 50%

concession. Petitioner had also taken up the matter with

the Govt. as per Ext.P12 letter requesting to take up the

matter with the respondents for reduction in license fee

pointing out that it is a 100% Govt. agency to look after

the cargo operations. But as per Ext.P13 letter dated

26.10.2018 the respondents rejected the request stating

that concession is not extended to PSUs of Central

Government or State Government. Though the matter was

taken up by the Government in Ext.P14 letter stating that

petitioner is the Kerala Government Agency running the Air

Cargo Operations and requesting to extend 50% reduction in

the license fee, as per Ext.P14(a) letter dated 17.01.2019

that request was also rejected stating that the concession

is not extended to PSUs of Central Govt. as well as State

Govt. and stating that petitioner is a Limited company, an

agency appointed by the Govt. of Kerala for running the Air

Cargoes which are not eligible for reduction in lease W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

rentals. It was stated that as per AAI Policy Guidelines

AAI allots land to Central Government Departments/State

Government(wholly owned by Central/State Government) for

performing their mandatory/regulatory functions who are

charged 50% of the normal license fee rate. The respondents

started issuing demand notices Ext.P15, P16, P16(a) and P17

requesting to clear the arrears. The Writ Petition was

filed thereafter at this stage challenging Ext.P5 order

dated 27.01.2015, Ext.P13, Ext.P15 and P17 letters and for

a direction to the respondents to reinstate the rate of

lease rate at Rs.243/- per sq.mtr with periodic escalation

at 7.5% and also for a direction to extent the benefit of

concessional license fee as available to Govt. agencies to

the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner the license fee was

enhanced unilaterally as per Ext.P5 order dated 27.01.2015.

It is alleged that the respondents ought to have enhanced

the fee only in case it was accepted by the petitioner and

unilateral increase of license fee is not contemplated in

the agreement executed between the parties. Petitioner also

pointed out that the charges at various airports for cargo

handling are different and the revenue handled by the

airports are not comparable. It is also alleged that the W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

denial of 50% concession to the petitioner is arbitrary and

petitioner is entitled to the concession as it is a

Government agency.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. They

have raised a preliminary objection as to the

maintainability of the Writ Petition stating that it is

highly belated. It is stated that Ext.P5 enhancement was

made as early as in January 2015 and the same was given

effect from 01.10.2014. Their further contention is that the

challenge in the Writ Petition is against contractual

obligations and there is no statutory contract between the

petitioner and the respondents. It is pointed out that as

far as there is no allegation as to the violation of

statutory provisions the remedy under Article 226 would not

be available to the petitioner, even if there is any

violation of any contractual terms. It is further stated

that the license agreement itself, the full text of which is

produced as per Ext.R2(a) provides for a mechanism when

there is breach of any contractual obligations. It is stated

that the allotment letter and license agreement provide for

the license fee payable and also that the same would be

subject to revision by the authority at an interval of every

three years or at such intervals as may be approved by the W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

Board of AAI from time to time. It is stated that the

licensee agreed to pay revised license fee without any

protest on the basis of the agreements executed and

extended. It is stated that the area given in license is

having an extent of 3185 sq.mtr as found in the joint

measurement. It is stated that the license fee for the year

2010-11 to 2013-14 was Rs.180, Rs.195, Rs.210 and Rs.226 per

sq.mtr per annum. It was enhanced to Rs.243/- per sq.mtr per

annum from 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2014 in 2014-15. It was

revised to Rs.1,360 per sq.mtr per annum w.e.f. 01.10.2014

to 31.03.2015. It is stated that the petitioner has not been

paying the land rent as per the revised rates of license fee

w.e.f. 01.10.2014, revised as per Ext.R2(f) circular dated

20.10.2014 and R2(g) circular dt.04.12.2017. It is stated

that the present rate of license fee for unpaved land

allotted to the petitioner was Rs.1,575/- from 01.04.2017

onwards and it is frozen for the next 5 years from

01.04.2017 to 31.03.2022. It is stated that the rates are

fixed by the CHQ of AAI after consideration of various

aspects and it cannot be fixed on mutual agreements between

the parties. The Chairman of AAI had already informed the

Government Secretary that the revision of license fee was in

order. The AAI had adopted transparent process and W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

methodology on the basis of the current Government circle

rate/ready reckonable rates applicable at various airports.

The rates had increased manifold due to re-

valuable/reassessment of land cost by the Government in view

of steep hike in rental value in open market and after

considering factors like inflation, devaluation of currency,

more demand of land due to commercialization, expansion of

cities etc which necessitated revision in base rate and the

rate was worked out and decided for implementation after a

period of six years and said rate is uniformly applicable to

all.

5. It is stated that the petitioner has to pay

licence fee at normal rates plus service tax as applicable

at Trivandrum Airport. The licence fees raised are subject

to revision and yearly escalation as decided by the Airport

Authority of India from time to time. According to the

respondents, it is not necessary to obtain the acceptance

of licencee for implementation of revision of licence fee

as it is covered by the allotment letters as well as the

agreement between the two parties. It is stated that all

other PSUs across the country are paying the licence fee at

the revised rates implemented w.e.f 01.10.2014 in Ext.R2(f)

and as revised subsequently as per Ext.R2(g) w.e.f W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

01.04.2017. The land allotted to the Central Govt./State

Govt. alone would be granted 50% concession and the same is

not extended to PSUs.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

even in contractual matters if the respondents are acting

arbitrarily, this Court under Article 226 can interfere

relying on the judgment dt.20.12.2019 in W.P.

(c).No.19414/2008 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court

reported in C.P.Mittal v. Union of India & Anr. [2007 SCC

OnLine Del 1185]. The learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that there is no automatic ban against entertaining

Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in case substantial elements of public law are

available.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents, relying on

the judgments of the Apex Court in Delhi Science Forum v.

Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 405], Peerless General Finance

and Investment Co. Limited v. Reserve Bank of India [(1992)

2 SCC 343], Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E.

Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal

Corpn. v. Gayatri Construction Co. [(2008) 8 SCC 172],

Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India & W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

Ors. [(2015) 7 SCC 728], Rajasthan State Industrial

Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem

Development Corpn. Ltd. [(2013) 5 SCC 470] and Gujarat

Maritime Board v. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure

Development Projects Limited & Anr. [(2016) 10 SCC 46]

argued that policy decisions of the Government including

economic policy are not liable to be interfered with under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India as also the

dispute relating to the terms of the contract with

statutory body are not liable to be interfered with.

9. One of the contentions raised by the respondent is

that there is huge delay on the part of the respondents in

challenging the orders against the petitioner, pointing out

the date on which Ext.P5 was issued. It is relevant to note

that immediately after the escalation as per Ext.P5 order,

there had been correspondence between the Ministers of the

State and Centre; petitioner and respondents; State and

Centre; State and respondents. Petitioner is an agency

under the State Government and 1st respondent is an agency

under the Central Government. The delay occurred in filing

the writ petition by and between such parties cannot

therefore non-suit the petitioner when it is seen that

there was an attempt going on for an amicable solution. W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

Therefore, I find that the objection raised by the

respondents with respect to delay is unsustainable.

10. The next contention of the respondents is on

judicial review in matters of contract. It is true that

Clause 3 of Ext.P2 provides for revision of licence fee at

an interval of 3 years or at such intervals as may be

approved by the Board of International Airports Authority

of India from time to time. It also provides for payment of

such license fee by the licensee without protest. According

to the respondents, when there is any such dispute, the

petitioner has to resort to arbitration, as provided in

Clause 35 of Ext.P2 agreement. But according to the

petitioner when the escalation by way of revision is by

500%, the same amounts to arbitrariness and in such

circumstances this court can interfere even in contractual

matters. In this context it is necessary to have a look at

the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner. In the judgment of the Madras High Court in V.

Krishnamoorthi V AAI in W.P.No.19414 of 2008 the issue

considered was one and the same. There the respondent

granted license to petitioner therein for running a coach

service/car service. There the challenge was against

circular issued in 2008, by which the license fee was W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

enhanced by 5 times. Despite the availability of a

provision for arbitration, the contention of the petitioner

that the enhancement was arbitrary and violative of

principles of natural justice was accepted. The contentions

raised by respondents as to the availability of a clause

for arbitration; writ will lie in contractual matters, etc

as raised in this writ petition were repelled. Relying on

the judgment in (2004) 3 SCC 214, it was held that the

respondents being instrumentalities of State, ought to have

acted fairly and reasonably. It is the very same respondent

which has enhanced the license fee in this case also.

11. Similar was the finding in the judgment of the

Delhi High Court in C.P.Mittal's case (supra) where the

allottees of Public Call Offices challenged the action of

the Northern Railway in demanded enhancement of commission

from 10% to 102 to 150%, under the guise of policy

decision. It was found that the action of a public utility

service provider has caused immense injury to the licensees

who were allotted PCOs in furtherance of welfare policies

and therefore writ petition will lie under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India and the enhancement was set

aside.

12. In this context it is relevant to have a look at W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the

respondent. In the judgment in Kurien E. Kalathil's case

the apex court held that disputes arising out of contracts

have to be settled in accordance with the contract and that

contractual activities of a statutory body need not involve

issues of public law. In Diamond & Gem Development &

Investment Companies' case (supra) the dispute was with a

private company and Rajastan State Industrial Development &

Invest Corporation, which had allotted land to the Diamond

& Gem Corporation for establishment of Gem Industrial

estate and executed lease deed for completing the project

within 5 years. Cancellation of allotment was challenged.

The Apex Court found that cancellation was under the Rules

as well as in terms of the lease and found that it could

have resorted to arbitration clause. In that judgment also

the apex court held that court should not exercise its writ

jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations. It was

also held that discretion must be exercised by the court on

grounds of public policy, public interest and public good.

In Joshy Technologies case(supra) the Apex Court summarised

the circumstances under which the High Court should not

normally exercise its discretion, in para 69 of the

judgment as follows:

W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.

69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.

69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.

13. The very same principles were reiterated in the

judgment in Gujarat Maritime Board v. Larsen and Toubro

Infrastructure Development Projects Limited & Anr: [(2016)

10 SCC 46] also.

14. Thus it is well settled that whenever there is a

provision for arbitration the parties shall resort to it.

However it is pertinent to note that there is no factual

disputes and the petitioner does not want to enforce any

provision in the contract. In this case parties on either

side are agencies under State Government and Central

Government. There is a provision for 50% concession. It

appears that the said concession is not referred to in the

agreement executed between the petitioner and 1st

respondent. The request of petitioner is rejected saying

that the enhancement is based on policy decision. In the

judgments in Peerless's case or in Delhi Science Forum's W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

case, relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents

it is held that the courts are not supposed to sit in

judgment over matters of economic policy and that it should

be left to the experts in the field. Both those judgments

do not appear to have been rendered in a case where the

dispute was between the agencies under the two Governments.

Therefore the question whether the petitioner would be

eligible for concession @ 50% as mentioned in Ext.P10

requires emergent consideration/reconsideration.

15. The respondents have stated that the concession is

admissible only for those Government agencies, directly and

fully controlled by the Government. Ext.P1 order would

show that the petitioner was appointed as the agency of the

Government of Kerala for running Air Cargo Complex. The

said decision is taken pursuant to the policy decision of

the Government of India to set up integrated Air cargo

complexes in each State. Based on the said policy decision,

the State Government has after undertaking a traffic survey

and on a finding that Air cargo potential of the State is

promising, declared that the petitioner would be the agency

for running the complex. In Ext.P10 the respondents have

stated as follows :

               "xxxx          xxxx      xxxx       xxxx      xxxx       xxxx
 W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019


       xxxx         xxxx
               As    per   point    No.2d)    of   the   AAI,   CHQ's   letter

mentioned as above, normal applicable licence fee will be the BASE for considering any concession to Govt. Agencies and/or other agencies as per policy of AAI, irrespective of the location of allotted sites. Hence, 50% of the normal rate of licence fee/land rent for the years from 2018-19 to 2021-22 (i.e 50% of Rs.1,895/- per sqm/annum for paved land and 50% of Rs.1,575/- per sqm/annum for unpaved land) are applicable for the land allotted to Govt. Agencies including Defence at Trivandrum Airport.

xxxx xxxx xxxx"

Thus the 50% concession was ordered for the land allotted

to Government agencies. That would mean that if the air

cargo is under a government department 50% concession would

be available. In the present case there is no separate

claim for State Government. It is evident from Ext.P1 that

the the petitioner is acting on behalf of the Government of

Kerala in implementation of the policy decision of the

Government of India to set up integrated cargo complexes,

which could only be a public purpose. Therefore whatever

benefit is admissible to the Government of Kerala should be

granted to the petitioner. Correspondence had been going on

between the Ministers of the State of Kerala and the Centre

on the enhanced rate of license fee ever since its W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2019

enhancement. Though the respondents have stated that Govt.

agency means agency which is fully controlled by the

Government and that PSUs would not come within the said

definition, nothing is seen in the orders to that effect.

Therefore, to that extent I am of the view that the matter

requires reconsideration by the respondents. Therefore,

even without going into the arbitrariness in the escalation

or the agreement executed between the parties, it is seen

that a reconsideration is required at the end of the

respondents as to the admissibility of concession to the

extent of 50% to the petitioner. A decision shall be taken

afresh in this matter after affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner as well as the State Government

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

a copy of the judgment. Till a decision is taken the

respondents shall not initiate any coercive action against

the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is disposed as above.

Sd/-

                                                           P.V.ASHA

rkc                                                         JUDGE
 WP(C).No.28805 OF 2019(A)




                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.4.1979
                     ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA BEARING

NO.GO.MS.NO.215/79/ID TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY AGREEMENT DATED 1.10.1997 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 26.3.2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2014 TO ALL AIRLINES.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.3.2015 BEARING NO.20/15/M(IND.&IT) SENT BY THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVT. OF KERALA TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION, GOVT. OF INDIA.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.6.2015 SENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WROTE TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.7.2015 SENT BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER, GOVT. OF KERALA TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION, GOVT. OF INDIA.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P10          TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED               5.7.2018
                     ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT                 TO THE
                     PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11          TRUE   COPY    OF   THE   LETTER   DATED   10.8.2018
 WP(C).No.28805 OF 2019(A)

ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING DO NO.123/PS/IND, GAD & NORKA DATED 15.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P14A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.1.2019 BEARING NO.ED/CARGO/1360/TRV/CUDCT/2018 ISSUED BY AAI CARGO LOGISTICS & ALLIED SERVICES COMPANY LTD. TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P15          TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED      7.2.2019
                     ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT        TO THE
                     PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P16          TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.2.2019

ISSUED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF AAI CARGO LOGISTICS & ALLIED SERVICES COMPANY LTD., A SUBSIDIARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P16A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 26.3.2012, ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A1 AND AWARD LETTER DATED 16.2.2012.

EXHIBIT R2 B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-

WP(C).No.28805 OF 2019(A)

AAT/COM/6(21)/96/933/9590 DATED 12.8.1996

EXHIBIT R2 C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-AAT/LM/KSIE DATED 16.2.2012.

EXHIBIT R2 D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-AAT/LM-

35/LA/KSIE 2012 DATED 16.11.2012.

EXHIBIT R2 E TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-AAT/LM-

35/LA/KSIE/2012/577 DATED 13.12.2012.

EXHIBIT R2 F TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO-

AV.21012/20/2014-LM DATED 20.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE CHQ OF AAI.

EXHIBIT R2 G TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO-

AV.21012/58/2016-LM/710 DATED 4.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE CHQ OF AAI.

EXHIBIT R2 H TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 1.10.1997 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE AAI AND KSIE.

EXHIBIT R2 I TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER D.O.NO-

ED/CARGO/1360/TRV/2019 482 DATED 4.4.2019

EXHIBIT R2 J TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-AAI/F&A/ CARGO/2018-19/F&A/6186 DATED 18.9.2018

EXHIBIT R2 K TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-

AAI/F&A/CARGO/2018-19 DATED 7.8.2018

EXHIBIT R2 I TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-

AAI/F&A/CARGO/2018-19 19/1819/445 DATED 7.8.2018.

EXHIBIT R2 M TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.5.2015 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO-2491 OF 2015.

EXHIBIT R2 N TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO-

AAT/LM/CIRCULAR/2018/180 DATED 5.7.2018 ADDRESSED TO AII AIRLINES /AGENCIES/OIL COMPANIES/GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.