Madras High Court
Kohinoor Educational Services ... vs The Airport Appellate Tribunal on 20 December, 2021
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
Kohinoor Educational Services Pvt., Ltd.,
Salem Airport
Salem
Tamil Nadu 636 309
Having its Registered Office at No.5, VIP Road,
Koh-e-Fiza, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh
Represented by its Director,
Mr.H.Shibu ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Airport Appellate Tribunal
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 003
2.M/s.Airport Authority of India,
Salem Airport,
Salem – 636 309
Tamil Nadu ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call upon all the
records on the file of the 1st respondent relating to the Judgment in Appeal
No.10/CP/AAT/2013 dated 18.3.2015 and quash the same and consequently
direct the 2nd respondent herein to permit the petitioner to run the flying
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
school set up by it in the premises of the 2nd respondent.
For Petitioner :Mr.Swarnam J Rajagopalan
For Respondents :R1 – Tribunal
R2 – Mr.V.Ramesh
ORDER
The order passed by the Airport Appellate Authority, New Delhi
dated 18.03.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner is a Company, registered under the Companies
Act, 1956. The petitioner states that they had adequate experience in
running of private flying training school and already running a flying school
in Guna (Madhya Pradesh), which is approved by Directorate General of
Civil Aviation and run by IMT Society.
3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that they entered into a
contract with the 2nd respondent / M/s.Airport Authority of India on
03.04.2009. The period of contract was 5 years and the petitioner was
permitted to run the training School at Salem. On account of allegations
regarding arrears of payment of license fee, show cause notice was issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
The said show cause notice dated 23.09.2011 was challenged by the
petitioner in W.P.No.22965 of 2011. This Court elaborately adjudicated the
issue with reference to Clause 20 of the agreement dated 03.04.2009 and
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has to invoke
the Arbitration Clause agreed between the parties under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The contract between the petitioner and the 2nd
respondent was terminated and an eviction order was passed. The petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Airport Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in
Appeal No.10/CP/AAT/2013 and after adjudication of the issues, the
Tribunal passed an order on 18.03.2015. The said order is under challenge
in the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the
basic principles are violated and the procedures followed are directly in
violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not provided
with the opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and
thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the show cause notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter
in payment of license fee to the Airport Authority of India. Subsequently,
the contract was terminated. The agreement provides Arbitration Clause.
Under those circumstances, the disputes ought to have been adjudicated by
invoking the provisions of Arbitration Clause. Contrarily, the petitioner
filed a writ petition and the writ petition was also dismissed on 11.01.2012
and thereafter, approaching the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal adjudicated
all those issues on merits and rejected the contention raised by the
petitioner. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot conduct an
adjudication in respect of the terms and conditions of the contract, which
requires examination of documents and evidences.
6. This apart, the period of contract itself expired in the year 2014
itself and the contract was terminated in the 2011 and if any grievances
exists as stated in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22965 of 2011,
the petitioner has to invoke the Arbitration Clause or approach the
competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of resolving the issues. In the
event of approaching such Forum or Court of law, such Court shall taken
into consideration the period, during which, the writ petition was pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
before the High Court for the purpose of condoning the delay, if any
application to condone the delay is filed.
7. The grounds raised by the petitioners are to be adjudicated on
merits and with reference to the documents and evidences made available.
8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / Airports Authority of
India made a submission that pursuant to the eviction order, possession was
taken over by the Airport Authority of India and operator was engaged to
run the training school.
9. This being the factum, at this length of time, the relief as such
sought for cannot be considered and accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.
20.12.2021
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
To
1.The Airport Appellate Tribunal
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 003
2.M/s.Airport Authority of India,
Salem Airport,
Salem – 636 309
Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.13681 of 2016
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
