Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Plus Max Duty Free Private Limited vs Airport Authority Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 20410 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20410 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2021

Kerala High Court
Plus Max Duty Free Private Limited vs Airport Authority Of India on 1 October, 2021
WP(C) No.19869/2021                        1/6

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                  Friday, the 1st day of October 2021 / 9th Aswina, 1943
                                WP(C) NO. 19869 OF 2021(G)
   PETITIONER:

          PLUS MAX DUTY FREE PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, NO. 86/18,
          ROYAL COMPLEX, SANKARI ROAD, SEETHARAMPALAYAM, TIRUCHENGODE,
          NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU-637 209, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND
          AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, KARTHIKEYAN P, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF
          K.PERUMAL, RESIDING AT NO. 4/83, PATTIYATHOTTAM MOOLAPALAYAM,
          ELUPPULI P.O, TIRUCHENGODE, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU 637 202.

   RESPONDENT:

      1. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR,
         TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008
      2. THE CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CORPORATE HEAD QUARTERS,
         RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110 003
      3. ADANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED (ATIAL),
         REGISTERED OFFICE, ADANI HOUSE, 56 SHRIMALI SOCIETY, NAVRANGPURA,
         AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT 380 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

        Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
   stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
   pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibits P6, pending
   disposal of this Writ Petition (Civil).
        This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
   the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments
   of M/S B.ASHOK SHENOY, P.S.GIREESH, ARJUN R NAIK Advocates for the
   petitioners, M/S V.SANTHARAM, Advocate for R1 & R2 and of M/s.
   ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER, TINA ALEX THOMAS, HARIMOHAN, S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
   Advocates for R3, the court passed the following:
 WP(C) No.19869/2021                            2/6




                                  P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
                      ------------------------------------------------------
                                W.P.(C)No.19869 of 2021
                      -------------------------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 1st day of October, 2021.


                                           ORDER

Petitioner, a Private Limited Company was assigned

the exclusive right of developing, operating and maintaining

duty free retail outlets at Thiruvananthapuram International

Airport in terms of Ext.P2 Concession Agreement executed by

them with the first respondent and they were accordingly

developing, operating and maintaining duty free retail outlets

in the said Airport. In terms of Ext.P2 Concession Agreement,

the petitioner is entitled to develop, operate and maintain

duty free retail outlets for a period of seven years from

02.09.2017. While so, the Customs authorities have closed

the duty free retail outlets of the petitioner with effect from

20.04.2018 alleging irregularities, and though the said action

of the Customs authorities has been interfered with by this

court in terms of Ext.P4 judgment, the said judgment has WP(C) No.19869/2021 3/6

W.P.(C) No.19869 of 2021 ..2..

been stayed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.360 of

2019. Ext.P5 is the interim order passed by the Division Bench

in Writ Appeal No.360 of 2019. In the light of Ext.P5 order, the

petitioner is not operating the duty-free retail outlets. Writ

Appeal No.360 of 2019 is pending. In the meanwhile, in

exercise of the power under Section 12A of the Airports

Authority of India Act, 1994, the first respondent leased out the

Airport to the third respondent to carry out the statutory

functions of the first respondent under Section 12 of the said

Act. The lease agreement entered into by the first respondent

with the third respondent will take effect on 18.10.2021. In

terms of Ext.P2 agreement entered into by the petitioner with

the first respondent, the first respondent is obliged to ensure

that the operation of the concessions in the nature of one

granted in favour of the petitioner shall not be affected by such

lease. It is seen that since the petitioner is not operating the

duty free retail outlets in the Airport, the third respondent has

now invited tenders for assigning the right to run the duty free WP(C) No.19869/2021 4/6

W.P.(C) No.19869 of 2021 ..3..

retail outlets to others. Ext.P6 is the invitation made by the

third respondent in this regard. Ext.P6 is under challenge in

the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that in so far as

they are entitled to run the duty free retail outlets in the

Airport till 2024, the third respondent is not entitled to assign

the said right to any one.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first

respondent as also the learned Senior Counsel for the third

respondent.

3. On a query from the Court, the learned Senior

Counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third

respondent would certainly honour the commitments of the

first respondent and the petitioner is therefore free to enter

into appropriate agreement with the third respondent for

running the duty free retail outlets in terms of the provisions of

Ext.P2 agreement.

As noted, since the operation of the duty free retail WP(C) No.19869/2021 5/6

W.P.(C) No.19869 of 2021 ..4..

outlets in the Airport has been interdicted by the Customs

authorities in the light of the interim order passed by this court

in Writ Appeal No.360 of 2019, the petitioner may not be able

to run the duty free retail outlets even if the third respondent

permits them to do so. In the circumstances, I am of the view

that it is only appropriate that this matter may be dealt with by

the court dealing with Writ Appeal No.360 of 2019. The

registry is therefore directed to place this matter before the

court dealing with Writ Appeal No.360 of 2019.

Sd/-

                                                   P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
          rkj




01-10-2021                       /True Copy/                        Assistant Registrar
 WP(C) No.19869/2021                 6/6

                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19869/2021
Exhibit P2            TRUE COPY OF CONCESSION AGREEMENT NO. 09/2017 DATED

22.08.2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2018 IN W.P.C NO.

21063 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF TENDER NOTICE REFERENCE NO.

RFP/NON-AERO/ATIAL/AUG/2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT, PUBLISHED ON E-AUCTION WEBSITE OF E-PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NAMELY, WWW. AIRPORTS. ABCPROCURE.COM, TAKEN ON 19.08.2021.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter