Kerala High Court

Ground Handling Association vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                   2025:KER:33842
W.P (C) Nos.29297 & 29700 of 2024   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
   FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 26TH VAISAKHA, 1947
                    WP(C) NO. 29297 OF 2024

PETITIONER:
          GROUND HANDLING ASSOCIATION
          REGISTERED OFFICE AT 904-907 AND BASEMENT NUMBER
          1, TIME TOWER, MG ROAD, SECTOR 28, GURGAON,
          HARYANA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
          PIN - 122002.
          BY ADVS.
          HARISH GOPINATH
          SURUMI NAZAR
          S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL
          AVIATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI
          BHAWAN BLOCK B, JOR BAGH SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT AREA,
          NEW DELHI -, PIN - 110003

    2     DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
          AUROBINDO MARG, OPP. SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW
          DELHI-THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, PIN - 110003
    3     COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
          KOCHI AIRPORT PO, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS
          MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 683111

 ADDL.R4 AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-18 STREET NO.2,
         MAHIPALPUR, NEW SOUTH WEST DELHI, NEW DELHI -
         110037 (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER
         DATED 10-10-2024 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC 29297/2024)
         BY ADVS.
         KRISHNA T C
         Abel Tom Benny
         GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE
         D.PREM KAMATH(K/1285/1998)
         TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)(K/000821/2008)
         AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY(K/001533/2023)
         AMRUTHA SELVAM(K/001249/2023)
         GENTLE C.D.(K/62/2022)
                                                    2025:KER:33842
W.P (C) Nos.29297 & 29700 of 2024   2
             K.R.PAUL(K/000579/2006)
             CLINT JUDE LEWIS(K/001973/2024)
             M.RISHIKESH SHENOY
             ANN MARY.V.I
             BENNY P.THOMAS
OTHER PRESENT:

            SR ADV SRI RAMESH BABU
            SR ADV SRI BENNY P THOMAS,
            DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
            SMT FERESHTE D SETHNA,
            SRI GEORGE G POOTHICOTE


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)No.29700/2024, THE
COURT ON 16.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:33842
W.P (C) Nos.29297 & 29700 of 2024         3

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 26TH VAISAKHA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 29700 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

     1      CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.
            REGISTERED OFFICE AT ROOM NO. CE-01 , IMPORT
            BUILDING 2, INTERNATIONAL CARGO TERMINAL, INDIRA
            GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, INDIA
            THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/ LEGAL COUNSEL MR.
            MOANIKEN, PIN - 110037

     2      BIRD WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,

            HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT E-9, CONNAUGHT HOUSE,
            CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - REPRESENTED BY ITS
            AUTHORIZED OFFICER/GENERAL MANAGER MR.DUSHYANT
            KAUSHAL, PIN - 110001

     3      INDOTHAI AIRPORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD.,
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 5, J B S HALDEN
            AVENUE, SILVER ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. S-2,
            KOLKATA- REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
            MR. DWIJENDRA NARAYAN THIVEDI, PIN - 700105

            BY ADVS.
            HARISH GOPINATH
            SURUMI NAZAR


RESPONDENTS:

     1      UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL
            AVIATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI
            BHAWAN BLOCK B, JOR BAGH SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT AREA,
            NEW DELHI -, PIN - 110003.

     2      DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
            AUROBINDO MARG, OPP. SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW
                                                    2025:KER:33842
W.P (C) Nos.29297 & 29700 of 2024   4
             DELHI-THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, PIN - 110003

    3       COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
            KOCHI AIRPORT PO, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS
            MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 683111

    4       ADDL.R4. AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES RIVATE
            LIMITED,
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT A-1 STREET NO.2,
            MAHIPALPUR, NEW SOUTH WEST DELHI, NEW DELHI -
            110037 (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10-10-
            2024 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC 29700/2024)


            BY ADVS.
            KRISHNA T C
            AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
            GEORGE G.POOTHICOTE
            M.RISHIKESH SHENOY
            ANN MARY.V.I
            D.PREM KAMATH(K/1285/1998)
            TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)(K/000821/2008)
            K.R.PAUL(K/000579/2006)
            CLINT JUDE LEWIS(K/001973/2024)
            BENNY.P.THOMAS


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).29297/2024, THE
COURT ON 16.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2025:KER:33842
W.P (C) Nos.29297 & 29700 of 2024      5




                                                               "C.R"
                        C.S.DIAS,J.
          ===================
          W.P.(C)Nos. 29297 and 29700 of 2024
         -----------------------------------
            Dated this the 16th day of May, 2025

                     COMMON JUDGMENT

The writ petitions are filed by existing ground handling

agencies challenging Ext.P4 addendum published by the

Cochin International Airport Limited, modifying the conditions in

Ext.P3 tender notification. The petitioner in W.P (C)

No.29297/2024 is a society of eight ground handling agencies,

and the petitioners in W.P (C) No.29700/2024 are three existing

ground handling companies. The respondents in the writ

petitions are (1) the Ministry of Civil Aviation, (2) the Directorate

of Civil Aviation, and (3) the Cochin International Airport Limited

('CIAL', in short), a scheduled commercial international airport.

The fourth respondent has got itself impleaded in the writ

petitions stating that they propose to participate in the tender.

2025:KER:33842

As the parties are the same and disputes are common, the writ

petitions are consolidated, jointly heard, and disposed of by this

common judgment.

2. Petitioners' case:

2.1. The common case of the petitioners in the two writ

petitions are as follows:

2.2. CIAL had published Ext.P3 tender notification on

10.7.2024, inviting bids from eligible agencies to be appointed

as second and third ground handling agencies to provide third-

party ground handling services at their airport.

2.3. Clause 5.5 of Ext.P3 tender notification lays down the

eligibility criteria for the bidders. Clause 5.5.2 stipulates that the

bidder shall not have any conflict of interest affecting the bidding

process. A bidder is deemed to have conflict of interest if, (a),

the bidder is a ground handling agency providing self-handing

services to airlines as defined in the National Civil Aviation

Policy 2016, (b) the bidder is a scheduled and/or non-scheduled

air carrier or any entity in which a scheduled/non-scheduled air

carrier or its promoter directly or indirectly holds any interest or

is otherwise an Associate of a scheduled air carrier and (c) a 2025:KER:33842

constituent of a bidder is also a constituent of another bidder.

2.4. However, by Ext.P4 addendum, CIAL deleted sub-

clause (b) of clause 5.5.2 of Ext.P3 tender, thereby allowing

scheduled and/or non-scheduled air carrier/helicopter operator,

its entity, promoter or Associate to participate in the tender.

2.5 Ground handling is a critical activity. The terms

'ground handling', 'ground handling agency' and 'self-handling'

have been defined by the second respondent in Aeronautical

Information Services Circular No.3/2022 ('Ext.P5 AIC', for

brevity). In light of the above definitions, CIAL cannot appoint a

domestic scheduled airline/helicopter operator, its subsidiary or

company as a 'ground handling agency'. It was to achieve the

above purpose that clause 5.5.2 (b) was originally incorporated

in Ext.P3 notification.

2.6. The regulation under Section 42 of the Airport Authority

of India Act was made applicable to airports managed by the

Airport Authority of India ('AAI', in short). Ext.P5 AIC lays down

the eligibility criteria for undertaking ground handling services at

non-AAI airports like CIAL.

2.7. AAI has framed the Airport Authority of India 2025:KER:33842

(Ground Handling Services) Regulations 2018 ('2018

Regulations', for brevity) ― (Ext.P9). Later, AAI promulgated

the Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services)

Amendment Regulations 2023 ('2023 Regulations', for brevity)

― (Ext.P12). Likewise, the second respondent issued Exts.P10

and 11 circulars dated 25.10.2018 and 28.10.2019,

respectively.

2.8 Exts.P9 and 10 have limited the right of the airline

operators to engage only in self-handling services. There is a

total embargo for airline operators to provide ground handling

services at airports, including civil enclaves. The Regulations

and Circulars have been issued to promote and sustain healthy

competition, to ensure the independence of ground handling

and that there is no conflict of interest between the ground

handling agency and the airline operator.

2.9 Other than for CIAL, all the AAI and non-AAI

airports have complied with the above Regulations and

Circulars ensuring that the ground handling agency is a distinct

and independent entity without any interest in the airline.

Although the petitioners had submitted representations to the 2025:KER:33842

second and third respondents to recall Ext.P4 addendum, no

positive steps have been taken. Hence, the writ petitions.

3. Respondents' case:

3.1. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter-

affidavit in W.P.(C)No.29297/2024 stating that, in exercise of the

powers conferred under Section 42 of the Airport Authority of

India Act, 1994 and with the approval of the Central

Government, AAI has framed the 2018 Regulations. The 2018

Regulations was amended by the 2023 Regulations. As per

clause 2 of the 2023 Regulations, all domestic scheduled

airline/helicopter operators may carry out ground handling

activities solely for self-handling at all airports, including civil

enclaves. In the event of Ext.P4 addendum facilitating any

domestic scheduled airline/helicopter operators to carry out the

ground handling activities other than self-handling, the same is

violative of clause 3 (1) of the 2023 Regulation.

3.2. CIAL has filed a counter-affidavit in W.P.

(C)No.29297/2024 stating that they are not a government

company and, therefore, they are not an authority falling within

the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the 2025:KER:33842

writ petition may be dismissed in limine. CIAL is a public-

private partnership airport and is a non-AAI airport. The current

regulation of the second respondent is not applicable to them,

which is expressly admitted in paragraph 21 of the writ

petition. The guidelines and regulations of the second

respondent do not prevent/prohibit/disallow CIAL from

implementing the eligibility criteria in Ext.P4 addendum. The

purpose of publishing Ext.P4 addendum is to encourage

broader participation in the tender process and to attract more

qualified and experienced agencies. Ext.P4 addendum does not

disqualify any agency from participating in Ext.P3 tender. CIAL

is duty-bound to comply with the directives issued by the

respondents 1 and 2 pertaining to non-AAI airports.

3.3. The additional fourth respondent has filed counter-

affidavits in the writ petitions stating they are a globally

accredited ground handling agency. The fourth respondent ― a

joint venture between Air India Limited and Singapore Airport

Terminal Services Limited ― was incorporated in 2010, with the

approval of the Government of India. At that time, the

Government of India controlled and managed Air India Limited.

2025:KER:33842

After Air India and Indian Airlines merged, the ground handling

business got vested with Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.

On 27.01.2022, the Tata Group of companies acquired Air India

and the fourth respondent. The two companies are independent

and distinct businesses, with Air India being a scheduled airline

operator and the fourth respondent being a ground handling

agency. The two companies have separate corporate

addresses, boards of directors, customers, business objectives,

employees, and geographical presence. The writ petition

mischaracterises the scope, ambit and legal effect of the

National Civil Aviation Policy, and the circulars issued by the

second respondent. As CIAL is a private airport, the 2018 or

2023 Regulations are not fully applicable. CIAL is principally

governed by the Aircraft Act and the Rules framed thereunder,

which only specify that the requirements of ground handling

agencies nominated by the airport operators is to be driven by

core infrastructural requirements, without compromise to safety

and security. CIAL has rightly issued Ext.P4 addendum to

obliterate restrictive covenants in Ext.P3 tender. The

fourth respondent does not incur any conflict of interest in 2025:KER:33842

relation to offering and/or performing third-party ground

handling services for CIAL. The terms of invitations to tender

are matters of the contractual prerogative of CIAL. The private

airports, including CIAL, are not bound by AAI's tender

conditions. Ext.P4 addendum has the legal effect of promoting

healthy competition, alongside the corollary valuable legal rights

of the fourth respondent to participate in Ext.P3 tender. In the

absence of arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias or

mala fides in the decision-making process, there are inherent

limitations in relation to interference with fair play in the

decision-making process. The writ petition is an abuse of the

process of law and endeavours to interfere with the vested

rights of the fourth respondent, who is to participate in Ext.P3

tender.

4. Petitioners' reply:

4.1. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits to the

counter-affidavits filed by the respondents 3 and 4. They have,

inter alia, contended that, since the Government of Kerala

('GOK', in short) has 32.42% shareholding in CIAL, that GOK

has the right to nominate one third of the directors of CIAL, that 2025:KER:33842

GOK has the right to appoint one among the directors as the

Managing Director of CIAL, that the Chief Minister of GOK is

the Chairman of CIAL, that two of the three Directors of CIAL

are Ministers of the GOK, that the Manager of CIAL is from the

rank of Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, that the

Managing Director of CIAL is an IAS officer and that as GOK is

exercising control over the management and policies of the

CIAL; CIAL is an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, CIAL

is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4.2. The Aircraft Act and the Rules govern airports'

development, maintenance and operation, including green field

airports. CIAL is a public airport and is licensed for public use.

CIAL functions under a license issued by the second

respondent. Rule 92 of the Aircraft Rules,1937, which deals

with ground handling services, mandates the Airport Operator to

ensure a competitive environment, allowing the airline operator

to engage, without restriction, any ground handling service

provider, the Central Government permits. As per Ext.P5 AIC,

the ground handling services must be "distinct and

independent". An airline or subsidiary can only handle self-

2025:KER:33842

handling at an airport, not third-party ground handling services.

4.3. The additional fourth respondent is not

providing ground services at Noida, Goa and Bhogapuram. As

per the National Civil Aviation Policy, it is the duty of the Airport

Operator to ensure that there will be three ground handling

agencies at major airports to ensure fair competition, which is in

addition to the rights of all domestic scheduled airline operators

to carry out self-handling at all airports through their

subsidiaries. A scheduled airline, its subsidiaries or joint

venture cannot do third-party ground handling by extending

their limited right of self-handling, as the same will not provide a

competitive environment for other airlines who want to hire

ground handling services. If such a course is permitted, airline

operators may bid for second and third ground handling

agencies directly or through their subsidiaries, leaving no scope

for the airlines to choose the ground handling agency, which is

against the spirit of the National Civil Aviation Policy.

5. Hearing:

Heard, Sri. Ramesh Babu, the learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioners, assisted by Sri.Harish Gopinath; Sri. T.C. 2025:KER:33842

Krishna, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India; Sri.

Benny P. Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel for the 3 rd

respondent and Smt. Fereshte D Sethna, the learned counsel

for the 4th respondent, assisted by Sri.

George.G.Poothicote. The Counsel have also filed their written

submissions.

6. Points for determination are whether:

(i) CIAL is an instrumentality of the State, and

(ii) Ext.P4 addendum is liable to be quashed.

7. Point No. (i):

7.1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

submitted that CIAL falls within the definition of State under

Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the decision

of this Court in John George Nechupadom v. Kerala State

Information Commission (2022 KHC 8035) and the

unreported decision in W.P (C) Nos.37773/2022, 43012/2023,

20432/2024 and 33287/2024 to support his argument.

7.2. The learned Senior Counsel for CIAL relied on the

decision of this Court in Girish G and another v. State of

Kerala and others [2020 KHC 289] to fortify his contention that 2025:KER:33842

CIAL does not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

7.3. There is a cleavage of opinion in the decisions of this

Court in John George Nechupadom and Girish G's cases

(supra) on whether CIAL is an authority falling within the

purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the

two decisions are rendered under different contexts. Girish's

case concerns the termination of the services of the employees

of CIAL, and John George Nechupadom's case concerns the

applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in CIAL. The

latter decision is stayed by the Division Bench, and the writ

appeal is pending consideration.

7.4. The learned Senior Counsel for CIAL submitted that

he was not pressing on point No. (i) i.e., regarding the

maintainability of the writ petitions, which shall be without

prejudice to the right of the CIAL to raise all the contentions on

the said point in the pending writ appeal.

7.5. Recording the above submission, and leaving open

the right of CIAL to raise all its contentions in the writ appeal, I

answer point No. (i) in favour of the writ petitioners for the 2025:KER:33842

purpose of these cases, and accordingly, proceed to decide

point No. (ii).

8. Point No. (ii):

8.1. CIAL has published Ext.P3 tender to appoint

second and third ground handling agencies for third-party

ground handling services at its airport. The eligibility criteria in

the Ext.P3 tender read thus:

"5.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

5.5.1 The bidder to be eligible to participate in the tender shall satisfy the following conditions and should also comply with the conflict-of- interest clause mentioned 5.5.2.

(a) The bidder may be a single entity (which may be private entity, government-owned entity incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956/2013 or applicable laws of foreign countries or a Partnership Firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 or an LLP or a JV company). Proprietorship entities are not permitted.

(b) The bidder should be a bona-fide Ground Handling entity with Security Clearance for GH operations from BCAS.

(c) The bidder should have a minimum of 5-year experience in Ground Handling (Ramp & Passenger Handling) of aircrafts during the last 7 years. Outsourced manpower activities or equipment lease shall not be considered as eligibility qualification.

(d) The bidder should have carried out Ground Handling services in at least one international airport with 7.5 million annual pax movement or three (3) Airports each with at least 3.5 million annual pax movement. This experience should be at Airports in India. For avoidance of doubt, the airport should have the said passenger capacity during any one year in the past 5 Financial Years.

(e) The bidder should have directly signed SGHA with at least 4 scheduled airlines in the past 7 years. Out of the 4 client airlines, at least 1 airline should have international operations for which entire GH services are provided by the bidder agency. For avoidance of doubt, this experience can be in any international airport in India.

(f) Out of the 4 client scheduled airlines, at least 1 airline should have wide-body operations. Proof of wide-body handling from the airline must be submitted separately. For avoidance of doubt, the widebody handling shall be for a scheduled airline.

` (g) The bidder shall comply with the MoCA guidelines No. 2025:KER:33842

AV24011/10/2021 dated 27th October 2022, attached as Annexure - 10, pertaining to standardization of ground handling equipment at Airport having passenger movement more than 3.5 million passengers per annum.

(h) The bidder must have a minimum annual ground handling turnover of Rs. 50 crores during any one of the last 5 financial years.

5.5.2 The bidder shall not have a conflict of interest to participate in this tender process. A bidder is deemed to have a conflict of interest affecting the bidding process if,

(a) The bidder is a GHA providing self-handling services to airlines as defined in NCAP 2016. Such Bidders shall not be eligible to participate in this tender.

(b) The Bidder is a scheduled or/and non-scheduled air carrier or any entity in which a scheduled air carrier or a non-scheduled carrier or its promoter(s) directly or indirectly holds any interest or is otherwise an Associate of a scheduled air carrier.

8.2. Later, by the impugned Ext.P4 addendum dated

08.08.2024, CIAL modified clause 5.5.2 of Ext.P3 in the

following manner:

"1. Clause no: 5.5.2 stands modified and replaced with the italicised

text below:

"The bidder shall not have a conflict of interest to participate in this tender process. A bidder is deemed to have a conflict of interest affecting the bidding process if,

(a) The bidder is a GHA providing self-handling services to airlines as defined in NCAP 2016. Such Bidders shall not be eligible to participate in this tender.

(b) A constituent of a bidder is also a constituent of another bidder."

8.3. The petitioners contend that CIAL cannot appoint

domestic scheduled airline/helicopter operators or their 2025:KER:33842

subsidiaries as Ground Handling Agencies. Ext.P5 AIC lists

the eligibility criteria for agencies undertaking ground handling

services at non-AAI airports, like CIAL. Similarly, the 2018 and

2023 Regulations and Exts.P10 and P11 circulars restrict

domestic scheduled airline/helicopter operators from carrying

ground handling activity, except self-handling.

8.4. On the contrary, the respondents 3 and 4 contend

that since CIAL is a non-AAI airport, there is no legal

impediment in CIAL issuing Ext.P4 addendum, particularly

given clause (aa) of sub-section (3) of Section 1, clauses (d)

and (e) of Section 2 and Section 37 of the Airport Authority of

India Act, 1994 and Sections 5 and 5 A of Aircraft Act read with

Rule 92 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. It is only to ensure a

competitive environment and encourage broader participation,

that Ext.P4 addendum has been issued.

8.5. Ext. P3 tender was published on 10.7.2024. The

last date for submission of bids and opening of the bids was

scheduled on 7.8.2024. Subsequently, the last date was

extended till 24.8.2024 and further until 31.8.2024. The

impugned Ext.P4 addendum was published on 8.8.2024.

2025:KER:33842

8.6. Clause (aa) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 states that the Act applies

to all private airports insofar as it relates to providing air traffic

service, to issue directions under Section 37 and for the

purposes of Chapter V-A; (b) all civil enclaves; (c) all

aeronautical communication stations; and (d) all training

stations, establishments and workshops relating to air transport

services.

8.7. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the above Act defines "air

traffic service" to include flight information service, alerting

service, air traffic control service, area control service, approach

control service and airport control service'; and Clause (e) of

Section 2 defines "air transport service to mean any service, for

any kind of remuneration, whatsoever, for the transport by air of

persons, mail or any other thing, animate or inanimate, whether

such service relates to a single flight or series of flights.

8.8. Section 37 of the above Act also empowers the

Authority or any authorised officer to issue directions consistent

with the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934, concerning any of

the matters specified in clauses (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (p), (qq) 2025:KER:33842

and (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of that Act, in the interest

of the security of India or for securing the security of the aircraft.

8.9. Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, empowers the

Central Government to make rules under the Act, and Section

5A empowers the Director General of Civil Aviation (2 nd

respondent) to issue directions.

8.10. Regarding the cases at hand, the 2 nd respondent

is empowered to issue directions in respect of clause (aa) of

sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, i.e., to

issue directions for regulating air transport services.

8.11. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 5

of the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Central Government has

promulgated the Aircraft Rules, 1937. It is pertinent to refer to

Rule 92 of the Rules, which reads as under:

"R.92: Ground handling service.―The license shall, while providing ground handling service by itself, shall ensure a competitive environment by allowing the airline operator at the airport to engage, without any restriction, any of the ground handling service provider, who are permitted by the Central Government to provide such services:

Provided that such ground handling service provider shall be subject to the security clearance of the Central Government".

8.12. In exercise of the powers under Section 5A of the

Aircraft Act, 1934, the 2 nd respondent has framed Ext.P5 AIC,

defining ground handling, ground handling agency and self-

2025:KER:33842

handling in sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (h) of paragraph 1.1 of

Ext.P5 AIC, which read as follows:

"(b) "ground handling" means services necessary for an aircraft's arrival at, and departure from, an airport other than air traffic control and it includes-

(i) ramp handling including activities as specified at Annexure 'A;

(ii) traffic handling including activities as specified at Annexure 'B';

and

(iii) any other activity specified by the Central Government from time to time;

(c) "Ground Handling Agency" means an entity, with distinct and independent existence at the airport established for the purpose of providing ground handling service at an airport and security cleared by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and duly appointed by the airport operator;

h) "self-handling" means the ground handling services relating to its own aircraft or helicopter by an airline or helicopter operator or its hundred percent owned subsidiary through its own regular employees, using equipment owned or taken on lease";

8.13. It is also necessary to refer to paragraphs 1.2, 2

and 2.4 of Ext.P5 AIC, which read as follows:

"1.2 The Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2000, and Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services), Regulations, 2007, have been made under Section 42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and thus are applicable to the airports managed by the Airports Authority of India. With the restructuring of certain airports and development of a few Greenfield airports in the private sector, it has become imperative for the Central Government to lay down the eligibility criteria for various agencies to undertake ground handling services at non- AAL airports. The number of such agencies to be permitted at each airport is also to be determined by the Government having regard to all the relevant factors such as demand for such services, available infrastructure and competitive environment, without compromising the safety and security aspects.

2025:KER:33842

2.Eligibility Criteria for Ground Handling Service Providers

While the Airports Authority of India would promulgate the necessary regulations, with the previous approval of the Central Government, under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, with respect to provision of ground handling services at the airports under their control, it has been decided by the Central Government that the following entities shall be eligible to undertake ground handling services at airports other than those belonging to the Airports Authority of India:-

                          ***                                         ***
                                                ***

2.4 At the airport having annual passenger throughput of ten million passengers per annum or above, the airport operator shall ensure that there will be three ground handling agencies including that of (a) the airport operator or its joint venture or its hundred percent owned subsidiary (b) a joint venture or a subsidiary of the Air India; and (c) any other ground handling agencies appointed by the airport operator through a transparent bidding process.

(emphasis supplied)

9. Analysis:

9.1. 2018 Ground Handling Regulations and 2023

Ground Handling Regulations are on the same lines as that of

paragraph 2.4 of Ext.P5 AIC, the Acts and the Rules referred to

above.

9.2 On a consideration of the law, the Rules, the

Regulations and Ext.P5 AIC referred to above, this Court finds

that it is the airport operator's responsibility to verify and

ascertain whether a bidder is a distinct and independent entity

to provide ground handling service at the airport and has 2025:KER:33842

security clearance from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security.

Furthermore the airport operator has to ensure a competitive

environment by permitting the airline operator to engage,

without any restriction, any of the ground handling service

provider, whom the Central Government permits; and where the

airport has an annual passenger throughput of ten million

passengers or above, the airport operator shall also ensure that

there are three ground handling agencies including that of (a)

the airport operator or its joint venture or its hundred percent

owned subsidiary (b) a joint venture or a subsidiary of the Air

India; and (c) any other ground handling agencies appointed by

the airport operator through a transparent bidding process.

Therefore, even if a ground handling agency (bidder) is

selected by the licensee/airport operator, such selection would

be subject to the approval of the Central Government.

(emphasis given)

10. Precedents on the point:

10.1. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro

Rail Corporation Ltd and another, (2016) 16 SCC 818, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded the law that the 2025:KER:33842

decision to accept or reject the bid should not be interfered with.

Interference is permissible only if the decision-making process

is arbitrary or irrational to an extent that no responsible authority

could have reached such a decision. Having authored the

tender documents, the owner/employer of the project is the best

person to understand and appreciate its requirements and

interpret its documents. It has been cautioned that the

constitutional courts are expected to exercise restraint in

interfering with the administrative decision and should not

substitute their view for that of the administrative authority.

10.2. In Association of Registration Plates v. Union

of India and others (2005) 1 SCC 679, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held thus:

"38. In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of high security registration plates, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. On intensive examination of tender conditions, we do not find that they violate the equality clause under Article 14 or encroach on fundamental rights of the class of intending tenderers under Article 19 of the Constitution..........".

10.3. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of 2025:KER:33842

Karnataka and others (2012) 8 SCC 216, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as under:

"24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"? and

(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?

If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226".

10.4. In Tata Motors Limited v. Brihan Mumbai

Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and

Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as follows:

"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to 2025:KER:33842

the public exchequer. (See:Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489)".

11. Conclusion:

11.1. The petitioners do not have a case that the

Ext.P4 addendum has been issued to favour anyone, or the

process adopted is arbitrary or irrational. They contend that the

addendum has been issued without any application of mind,

and therefore, it is arbitrary, unreasonable and restricts a level

playing field. Only in the written submission have the petitioners

alleged that Ext.P4 has been issued to accommodate the fourth

respondent. The said submission is without any foundation in

the pleadings. The eligibility of the bidders is a matter that is to

be evaluated and scrutinised by CIAL. As it is trite that it is the

prerogative and discretion of an employer to settle the tender

conditions, and a bidder has no voice to dictate its terms, the

petitioners are precluded from contending that CIAL is not

empowered to modify the tender conditions. Since the

petitioners have failed to establish any malice or arbitrariness in

CIAL issuing Ext.P4 addendum, this Court does not find any

illegality in the addendum. The discussions conclude that the 2025:KER:33842

writ petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, point No. (ii) is found against the petitioners, and

the writ petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/14/5/2025 2025:KER:33842

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29700/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18/10/2022 ALONG WITH AUTHORITY LETTER

Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 20/08/2024

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 20/08/2024

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TENDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF SECOND AND THIRD GROUND HANDLING AGENCIES FOR PROVIDING THIRD-PARTY GROUND HANDLING SERVICES AT COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM-2 TO EXHIBIT P3 DATED 08/08/2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DGCA AIC 03/2022 DATED 25/02/2022 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AIC 07/2007 DATED 28/09/2007 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P6

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AIC 13/2009 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P7

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AIC 03/2010 DATED 2/06/2010 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P8

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) 2025:KER:33842

REGULATIONS 2018 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P9

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DGCA AS AIC 10/2018 DATED 25/10/2018 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P10

Exhibit p11 TRUE COPY OF THE DGCA AS AIC 18/2019 DATED 28/10/2019 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P11

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P12

Exhibit p13 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 06/08/2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13

Exhibit p14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION DATED 09/08/2024 ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P14

Exhibit P14(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION DATED 10/8/2024 ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P14(A)

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2024 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P15

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(ae) True copy of DGCA AIC 18/2019 dated 28 October 2019

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024

2025:KER:33842

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(a1) True copy of the Certificate of Incorporation dated 20.04.2010 of Respondent No.4

Exhibit R4(c) True copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of Air India Ltd dated 30.03.2007

Exhibit R4(b) True copy of Memorandum of Association dated 20.04.2010 of Respondent No.4

Exhibit R4(d) True copy of Memorandum of Association of Air India Limited dated 29.03.2007

Exhibit R4(e) Press release dated 07 February 2022 by Press Information Bureau announcing the completion of disinvestment

Exhibit R4(f) True copy of relevant extract from the (statutory) Annual Return for FY 2023- 2024 of Respondent No.4

Exhibit R4(g) True copy of different board of directors and key managerial personnel that run each entity, as per list dated 16.10.2024

Exhibit R4(h) True copy of a list of industry accreditations, awards, recognitions accorded to Respondent No.4 dated 15.10.2024

Exhibit R4(i) True copy of chartered accountancy firm's certification dated 17 October

Exhibit R4(j) True copy of the National Civil Aviation Policy, 2016

Exhibit R4(k) True copy of 2016 Guidelines by Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt of India

Annexure R4(o) True copy of DGCA AIC 03/2022 dated 2025:KER:33842

25.02.2022

Exhibit R4(l) True copy of the Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 dated 30.10.2018

Exhibit R4(t) True copy of the relevant extract of Goa (Manohar International Airport) tender dated 25.03.2021

Exhibit R4(m) True copy of Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Amendment Regulations, 2023 dated 20.04.2023

Exhibit R4(n) True copy extract of Rule 92 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 dated 23.03.1937

Exhibit R4(u) True copy of the relevant extract of Bhogapuram (Visakhapatnam International Airport) tender dated 23.07.2024

Exhibit R4(p) True copy of the relevant extract of the Tender conflict of interest, Tender Number: CIAL/ COML/GH/115/2024

Exhibit R4(q) True copy of Addendum No. 2 dated 08 August 2024

Exhibit R4(r) True copy of acknowledgment dated 09 October 2024 issued by Respondent No.3

Exhibit R4(s) True copy of the relevant extract of NOIDA International Airport tender dated 28.09.2023

Exhibit R4(v) True copy of nexus of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 29700 of 2024 and members of the Ground Handling Association

Exhibit R4(w) True copy of AERA orders relating to Chennai Airport dated 07.12.2023

Exhibit R4(x) True copy of AERA orders relating to Chennai Airport dated 05.12.2023

Exhibit R4(y) True copy of the Delhi High Court 2025:KER:33842

judgment in WPC 8502/2023 dated 06 August 2024

Exhibit R4(z) True copy of the Delhi High Court judgment in Writ Petition 8004 of 2010 dated 04.03.2011

Exhibit R4(aa) True copy of DGCA AIC 07/2007 dated 28 September 2007

Exhibit R4 (ab) True copy of DGCA AIC 13/2009 dated 31 December 2009

Exhibit R4(ac) True copy of DGCA AIC 03/2010 dated 2 June 2010

ExhibitR4(ad) True copy of DGCA AIC 10/2018 dated 25 October 2018

Exhibit R4(af) TRUE COPY OF ANNEX B DATED 31.01.2024 IN EXHIBIT R4(I)

Exhibit R4(ag) TRUE COPY OF ANNEX C DATED 13.02.2024 IN EXHIBIT R4(I) 2025:KER:33842

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29297/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 7/11/2017

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY ALONG WITH THE LIST OF MEMBERS AND ITS GOVERNING BODY

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDENDUM-2 TO EXHIBIT P3 DATED 08/08/2024

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DGCA AIC 03/2022 DATED 25/02/2022 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AIC 07/2007 DATED 28/09/2007 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AIC 13/2009 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AIC 03/2010 DATED 2/06/2010 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) REGULATIONS 2018

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DGCA AS AIC 10/2018 DATED 25/10/2018

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DGCA AS AIC 18/2019 DATED 28/10/2019 2025:KER:33842

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2023

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT DATED 06/08/2024 IN WP (C)

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION DATED 09/08/2024

Exhibit P14(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION DATED 10/08/2024

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2024

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(a1) True copy of the Certificate of Incorporation dated 20.04.2010 of Respondent No.4

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 IN W.P.C 29700 OF 2024

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4 (b) True copy of Memorandum of Association dated 20.04.2010 of Respondent No.4

Exhibit R4 (c) True copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of Air India Ltd dated 30.03.2007

Exhibit R4(d) True copy of Memorandum of Association of Air India Limited dated 29.03.2007

Exhibit R4(e) Press release dated 07 February 2022 by Press Information Bureau announcing the 2025:KER:33842

completion of disinvestment

Exhibit R4(f) True copy of relevant extract from the (statutory) Annual Return for FY 2023- 2024 of Respondent No.4

Exhibit R4 (g) True copy of different board of directors and key managerial personnel that run each entity, as per list dated 16.10.2024

Exhibit R4(h) True copy of a list of industry accreditations, awards, recognitions accorded to Respondent No.4 dated 15.10.2024

Exhibit R4(i) True copy of chartered accountancy firm's certification dated 17 October

Exhibit R4(j) True copy of the National Civil Aviation Policy, 2016

Exhibit R4(k) True copy of 2016 Guidelines by Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt of India

Exhibit R4(l) True copy of the Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 dated 30.10.2018

Exhibit R4(m) m) True copy of Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Amendment Regulations, 2023 dated 20.04.2023

Exhibit R4(n) True copy extract of Rule 92 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 dated 23.03.1937

Exhibit R4(o) True copy of DGCA AIC 03/2022 dated 25.02.2022

Exhibit R4(y) True copy of the Delhi High Court judgment in WPC 8502/2023 dated 06 August 2024

Exhibit R4(p) True copy of the relevant extract of 2025:KER:33842

the Tender conflict of interest , Tender Number: CIAL/ COML/GH/115/2024