Madras High Court
Bhadra International (India) ... vs Union Of India on 16 June, 2021
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16 / 06 / 2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
AND
WMP NOS.25098 AND 25100 OF 2020 AND 2425 OF 2021
Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager – HR
A-9, Airlines Office Gallery, 2nd Floor,
Anna International Terminal
Chennai Airport
Chennai – 600 027. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India
Rep. by Secretary to Government
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.Airport Authority of India
Rep. by its Chairman
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 003.
1/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
3.The Airport Director
Airport Authority of India
Chennai Airport
Chennai – 600 027.
4.Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
Rep. by Director General
Sri Aurobindo Marg
Opp. Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 003. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned communications
bearing No.AV-24011/8/2017-AAI-MOCA-Part (1) dated 22.12.2020 issued
by Respondent No.1 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to renew the Airport Entry Passes of the ground handling staff of
the petitioner at Chennai and Kolkata Airports at least until 30.06.2021 or till
such time that the duly selected ground handling agencies appointed by the
respondents operationally take over for Chennai and Kolkata Airports
pursuant to open tender process in terms of Regulation 3(4) of the Ground
Handling Regulations, 2018, whichever is later.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman
Senior Counsel for Dr.R.Maheswari
For Respondent-1 : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar
Central Government Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan
2&3 Additional Solicitor General of India
Assisted by Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan
2/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
ORDER
The petitioner was granted License to carry on the Ground
Handling Services to interested Airlines at Airports at Chennai and Kolkata
as per the International Standard on 29.11.2010. The License Agreement was
entered on that date with contractual terms and conditions. As per Clause 1(a)
of the License Agreement, the License commenced on 23.09.2010 for a
period of ten years from 23.09.2010 to 22.09.2020 unless terminated earlier
under the provisions of that Agreement.
2.The appointment of an agency for Ground Handling Services
was made under Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for
Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (in short “2007
Regulations”). These Regulations came to be amended / modified
periodically and new Regulations were issued. The 2007 Regulations is
superseded by Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services)
Regulations 2017 (in short “2017 Regulations”). Thereafter, new
Regulations viz., Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Services)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Regulations, 2018 (in short “2018 Regulations”) was issued in supersession
of 2017 Regulations.
3.As per Regulation 3(4) of 2018 Regulations, at the Airport
having annual passenger throughput of ten million passengers per annum or
above there shall be at least three Ground Handling Agencies and where the
passengers throughput is less than ten million passengers per annum, the
Airport Operator shall appoint Ground Handling Agencies not exceeding
three.
4.As per Regulation 7(1) of the 2018 Regulations, all Airport
Operators were mandated to complete the selection process of number of
Ground Handling Agencies by 31st October 2018 unless extended by
Government of India.
5.As per Regulation 7(2) of the 2018 Regulations, the Ground
Handling Agencies so appointed shall commence its operations not later than
30th June 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
6.As per Regulation 7(3) of the 2018 Regulations, the Agencies
which were not appointed as per the 2018 Regulations, shall not be allowed
to continue after 31st October 2018 unless extended by Government of India.
However, the petitioner / Agency was granted extension of time beyond
30.06.2019.
7.It is also pertinent to note that as per the contractual terms
under 2017 Regulations, 180 days notice in writing shall be issued for
terminating the contract. The second respondent issued a notice dated
12.02.2018 that in accordance with 2017 Regulations, new Agency would be
appointed and that the existing arrangement would come to an end on expiry
of 180 days from the date of said notice. The time was again extended by
another notice dated 19.06.2018 extending the period upto 30.06.2019; and
by notice dated 04.06.2019 extending the period upto 30.12.2019; and by
communication dated 14.10.2019, extending the License till 30.03.2020; and
by communication dated 17.03.2020, the License period further extended till
22.09.2020. Thereafter, the License Agreement was not extended. As such,
on 23.09.2020, the License was not in force.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
8.Thereafter, a Circular dated 01.10.2020 was issued specifying
the interim arrangement wherein the Airlines at Chennai and Kolkata
Airports can have temporary arrangement with any Government Ground
Handling Agencies having valid security clearance upto 31.12.2020 or
commencement of operation by AAICLAS whichever is earlier. The Airlines
Operator Council made a communication to the second respondent raising
their concern for having Ground Handling Services with Air India Airport
Services Limited (AIASL) and requested for grant of Airport Entry Passes
(AEP) in favour of the petitioner / Agency. However, it was informed by the
respondents that temporary arrangements will be only upto 31.12.2020.
9.Subsequently, on 22.12.2020, a communication was issued by
the first respondent that Airport Entry Passes will be extended to all the
existing Ground Handling Agencies at Airports except Chennai, Kolkata,
Goa and Pune. In respect of Chennai, Kolkata, Goa and Pune Airports,
Airports Authority of India (AAI), the second respondent, have to manage the
Ground Handling Operations by employing the services of authorized
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Government Ground Handling Agencies, already operating at these four
Airports, till such time regular Ground Handling Agencies are appointed by
Airports Authority of India (AAI).
10.Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned communication
issued by the first respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
and in violation of statutory regulations. According to him, when the first
respondent by the impugned communication grants extension of License
period to the existing Ground Handling Agencies, till 30.06.2021, to all the
Airports, discriminating the Chennai and Kolkata Airports, where the
petitioner is carrying on Ground Handling Services is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution. Further, as per Regulation 3(4) of 2018 Regulations,
where the Airport having annual passenger throughput of ten million
passengers per annum or above, there shall be three Ground Handling
Agencies, whereas, as per the present communication, it is lesser than three
Ground Handling Agencies which is violative of Regulation 3(4) of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Regulations. Therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set
aside.
11.The next contention is that the impugned order has actuated
by malafides since the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the action of
the respondents before the Delhi High Court and also raised an arbitration
against the second respondent, wherein a counter claim was also filed by the
second respondent. The Arbitrator has dismissed both the claims filed by the
petitioner as well as the counter claims filed by the second respondent.
Therefore, to single out the writ petitioner, the impugned communication
issued to the effect that the License for Ground Handling Services will not be
extended in respect of Chennai and Kolkata Airports alone. Therefore, the
action of the respondents is purely malafide.
12.Thirdly, even assuming that a new Agency is going to be
appointed, it will take at least six months' time for the new Agency to erect
the infrastructure and commence its operations. Till such time, the Airlines
and the passengers will be put to hardship. Without considering the hardship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
caused to the passengers as well as handling of cargo, the respondents have
arbitrarily act with malafide motive and passed the impugned
communication. As long as the Government authorities acts arbitrarily, even
when they are acting in their executive capacity in the contractual field, the
action can be challenged by way of a writ petition.
13.For the above proposition, in respect of maintainability of
writ petition in a contractual matter, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
RADHAKRISHNA AGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR
[1977 (3) SCC 457] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
State acting in its executive capacity on the contractual field is subject to
obligations cast by Part III of the Constitution of India including the
obligations under Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, where the States acts
arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner, even if such conduct is in the
contractual field, a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
14.In SANJANA M.WIG (MS) VS. HINDUSTAN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD, [2005 (8) SCC 242] the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that access to justice by way of public law remedy would not
be denied when a lis involves public law character and when the forum
chosen by the parties would not be in a position to grant appropriate relief.
15.Clearly since the petitioner has not sought contractual
remedies, the Arbitrator under the contract would not be in a position to grant
any relief. Thus the only remedy available to the petitioner is under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. In GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION VS. M/S. LOTUS HOTELS PVT LTD., [1983 (3) SCC
379] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rule inhibiting arbitrary
action by the Government would equally apply where such corporation
dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into
contracts or otherwise and it cannot act arbitrarily and its action must be in
conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance.
A Writ petition would be maintainable in such circumstances.
16.Subsequently in ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD & ANR VS.
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
ORS. [2004 (3) SCC 553] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“If a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a
matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the
court by way of writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The requirement of Article 14 should extend
even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the
conduct of the State activity. Applicability of Article 14
to all executive actions of the State being settled and for
the same reason its applicability at the threshold to the
making of a contract in exercise of the executive power
being beyond dispute, the State cannot thereafter cast off
its personality and exercise unbridled power unfettered by
the requirements of Article 14 in the sphere of contractual
matters and claim to be governed therein only by private
law principles applicable to private individuals whose
rights flow only from the terms of the contract without
anything more.
17.Even the existence of an Arbitration clause in a contract
would not denude the Writ Court of its Constitutional jurisdiction under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is now well established
that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the settled legal position is that even in the
contractual sphere, a Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable especially if infraction of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India is alleged by the petitioner.
18.Further, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that as per
Regulation 5 of 2018 Regulations, all the Ground Handling Services shall be
provided only through the regular employees of the entities permitted under
these Regulations. They shall not hire or engage employees through
Manpower Agencies as it concerns security provisions. Whereas, the Airports
Authority of India or the present Ground Handling Agencies are not having
regular employees. Therefore, carrying on Ground Handling Services through
contract workers is violative of Regulation 5 of 2018 Regulations and
therefore also, the impugned action of the respondents shall be set aside and
the petitioner shall be permitted to continue till a regularly selected Ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Handling Agency is appointed by the respondents pursuant to an open tender
in terms of Regulation 3(4) of 2018 Regulations.
19.Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India
Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, would vehemently oppose the contentions raised by
the petitioner. At the first instance, he would content that the writ petition is
not maintainable. The petitioner was granted a License on 29.11.2010 for
providing Ground Handling Services at these Airports in India. As per Clause
1(a) of the License Agreement, it is specifically stated that the License shall
be valid for a period of ten years from 23.09.2010 to 22.09.2020 unless
terminated earlier under the provisions of the Agreement. Therefore, it is
clear that the contract is determinable. Once the contract has expired, by
efflux of time, or it is determined by the Authority, the petitioner has a right
to enforce the contract only under the provisions or to invoke Clause 78 of
the License Agreement, which provides for Arbitration. The petitioner is not
entitled to maintain a writ petition without any right and without having any
License Agreement in force. In other words, after the termination of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
License, the petitioner has no right to maintain a writ petition.
20.As per the records, the License of the petitioner was
terminated on 12.02.2018 in accordance with Clause 75 of the License
Agreement. As per Clauses 74 and 75 of the License Agreement, 180 days
notice in writing shall be given. Accordingly, the petitioner was given 180
days notice, but he has not chosen to challenge the termination notice at any
point of time. Having failed to challenge the termination notice, he has no
right to maintain the present writ petition.
21.In fact, the petitioner has raised a dispute in 2016 and
claimed damages for their loss suffered during the years 2015 and 2016 and
also complained that the respondents were guilty of non-implementation of
rules and regulations. Having taken a stand that they suffered losses in the
entire contract, it is an after thought to state that the respondents have acted
in malafide against the petitioner. In fact, the appointment of Ground
Handling Agencies is still under process in all other Airports except Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
and Kolkata. In respect of Chennai and Koilata, the tender process had been
completed, successful tenderers have been identified and Letter of Indent of
Award (LOIA) to the successful bidders in the respective Airports have been
issued on 12.01.2021.
22.Curiously, the petitioner was invited to offer his tender, he
has not submitted his bid as admitted by him. In such a situation, where the
regular Agency is appointed, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain the
writ petition and in fact, the writ petition has become infructuous on
appointment of the newly selected Agency. The prayer in the writ petition is
very limited and worked out by itself, even assuming, but without admitting
that the petitioner had any semblance of right for enforcing a determined
contract, the forum is elsewhere.
23.He would also contend that the letters issued by the Airlines
Operator Council (AOC) will not confer any right on the petitioner to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
continue the Ground Handling Services. In fact, a writ petition was filed in
WP (C) No.8004 of 2010 challenging the Ground Handling Regulations 2007
as ultra vires. However, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition
upholding the vires of 2007 Regulations. The SLP filed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was also withdrawn by the petitioners therein on 29.07.2019.
After having withdrawn the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner cannot rely upon the letters issued by Airlines Operator Council
(AOC) as AOC has no right to insist upon the continuance of the petitioner as
a Ground Handling Agency and to insist on issuance of Airport Entry Passes
(AEP) to the petitioner. Therefore, all the parties are bound by Regulation
3(4) of 2018 Regulations and none can insist on the continuance of petitioner
who is a non-entitled Agency to continue in a secured place like Airport.
Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed as not maintainable.
24.I have considered the rival submissions.
25.At the outset, it is noted that Airports are under the control of
Airports Authority of India (AAI). The Airports Authority of India was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
vested with the power under the Act and framed regulations for the discharge
of their functions with the prior approval of the Central Government. For the
purpose of providing smooth transfer of passengers as well as transfer of
goods, regulations were framed. The first of such was the Airport Authorities
of India (General Management, Entry, for Ground Handling Service)
Regulations, 2000. It was superceded by the Airports Authority of India
(General Management, Entry, for Ground Handling Service) Regulations,
2007. As per Regulation 3 of the 2007 Regulations, the Ground Handling
Services at Metropolitan Airports shall be carried by engaging the services of
Airports Authority of India or the Joint Venture Company or subsidiary
companies of the National Carrier or through a Ground Handling Agency
appointed through a transparent tender process. Under these Regulations of
the year 2007, the petitioner was appointed as a Licensee to carry out the
Ground Handling Service and License Agreement was entered between the
petitioner and the second respondent on 29.11.2010, for a period of ten years
commencing from 23.09.2010 to 22.09.2020. As per the License Agreement,
as contended by the respondents, it is determinable one and at the sole
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
discretion of the second respondent. It mandates issuance of 180 days notice
in writing without assigning any reasons as per Clauses 74 and 75 of the
License Agreement. If at all the Licensee is aggrieved, he has an option to
challenge the termination by invoking Clause 78 of the License Agreement
through Arbitration.
26.In the instant case, 2018 Regulations came to be published in
supersession of the previous Regulations, namely, 2017 Regulations. It is
also pertinent to note that the Licensee shall share 32.5% of Gross turn over
or the minimum turn over which is Rs.211 Crores or whichever is higher with
the AAI for providing these Licenses.
27.It is relevant to refer to Clauses 9, 23, 27, 41, 53, 57, 62, 66,
71, 74, 75 and 78 of the License Agreement dated 29.11.2010, which reads as
under:
“9. The licensee shall develop the ground handling
business with the concerned airlines at the cost at Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
& Kolkata Airports respectively. The airlines concerned
shall have the liberty to select any of the service provider
authorized under the Regulation 2007 and or licensed by
AAI for the Ground Handling Services. AAI will not be
responsible in anyway whatsoever for development of the
Ground Handling Business of the licensee and shall not
entertain any claim for rebate on the quoted licence fee on
this account.
23. The successful tendered will be required to obtain
security clearance from the Appropriate Deptt. Of Central
Govt and they will be given one month's time form the date
of award/indent to get the security clearance, failing
which award shall stand withdrawn. However, the
management at its discretion considering the reasons
submitted by the bidder, may extend the period beyond one
month.
27. The licensee at its cost shall procure and maintain
the ground handling equipments and the ground handling
facilities and related operations to achieve the performance
requirements as fixed by concerned Airlines and as per Good
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Industry practices and AAI ground handling Regulations in
force.
41. Licensee shall observe, perform and comply with
all provisions and requirements of the Shops &
Establishment Act, Factories Act, Industrial Disputes Act
and all other applicable laws and any rules and regulations
made by the Authority, Civil Aviation Department or any
other Department of Government, Municipal Corporation
and other authorities in respect of or relating to the said
ground handling functions and business to be carried on by
the License in or upon the airport premises.
53.Licensee shall have no objection to the Authority
granting licence to any other agency person(s) for providing
similar ground handling business at the Chennai & Kolkata
Airports as mentioned in the agreement in terms of the
Regulation 2007.
57. For any strike or lock out in any of the Airlines or
for any other reason. If the business of the Licensee is
affected the Authority shall not be liable for any loss, which
the licensee may suffer. In such an event, the Licensee shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
not be entitled to any reduction in the royalty and or any
other charges payable to the Authority under or as provided
in this Agreement.
62. Licensee shall during the continuance of this
Licence,Insure against any claims for workmen's
compensation or otherwise of all persons employed by it in
connection with its business to be carried on, as aforesaid,
with such Insurance Company as the Authority shall
approve of and shall produce, for inspection of the
Authority, all policies in respect thereof and receipts for
payment of premium.
66. If the Licensee shall desire to determine this
Agreement, it shall give to the Authority 180 days clear
notice, in writing of such desire and shall, upto the time of
such determination pay the amounts due on account of the
licence fee and royalty and other charges and perform and
observe the covenants and conditions, herein contained and
on the part of the Licensee to be paid, observed and
performed. Immediately, on the expiration of such notice,
this license shall cease and determine but, without prejudice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
to the rights and remedies to which the Authority has
become entitled in respect of any antecedent claim or breach
of the covenant and conditions, herein contained, and, on
the part of the License, to be paid, observed and performed.
71. On the termination of this Licence, the Authority
shall be entitled to the possession of the airport premises,
without any compensation or damages and the Licensee
shall forthwith, remove the structures, equipments,
installations, furnitures, fixtures and goods and materials,
constructed or put up, and stored in the airport premises at
its own cost and expenses and, on its, failure to do so, the
Authority shall cause the same to be removed, at the cost of
the Licensee, and if, within ten days of the demand, in
writing by the Authority, the Licensee fails to pay such cost
of removal, the Authority shall cause the same to be sold by
public auction. Any amount, so recovered at the said
auction, shall be adjusted towards any sum payable by the
Licensee to the Authority, on any account whatsoever, and
the balance shall be remitted to the Licensee, at its own
cost, at its last known address. The Authority shall not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
liable for any loss or damage or any claim arising out of the
said auction and all loss, damage or liability shall be to the
account of and be borne by the Licensee. The Licensee shall
not be entitled to raise any objection as to the termination of
the licence on any account.
74. The licensee shall not terminate the licence before
the expiry of the period of license except by giving 180 days
notice in writing, otherwise the licensee shall be liable to
pay to the Authority (without any demur or question) such
amount of money as the authority may decide as due to it by
the licensee.
75. This Licence can be terminated by the Authority
by giving 180 days notice, in writing, at any time without
assigning any reason. When this Agreement is so
terminated, the Licensee shall remove all the structures
equipments, installations, furnitures, fixtures and goods and
materials, constructed or put up and stored in the airport
premises, at its own cost, and peacefully give up and make
over vacant possession of the said airport premises to the
Authority, without claiming any compensation whatsoever,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
provided that the Authority shall have the first option to
purchase the said structures, installations, equipments etc.,
at a valuation to be mutually agreed to between the
Authority and the Licensee and, in case of disagreement, to
be determined by arbitration as provided for in this
Agreement.
78. All disputes and differences, arising out of or, in
any way, touching or concerning this Agreement (except
those the decision whereof is otherwise hereinbefore
expressly provided for or to which the Public premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the
rules framed hereunder which are now in force or which may
hereafter come in to force, are applicable) shall be referred to
the sole arbitration of a person, to be appointed by the
Chairman of the Authority or, in case the designation of
Chairman is changed or his office is abolished, by the person,
for the time being entrusted, whether or not, in addition to
other functions, with the functions of the Chairman,
Airports Authority of India, by whatever designation such
person may be called, and, if the Arbitrator, so appointed, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
unable to unwilling to act, to the sole arbitrations of some
other person to be similarly appointed. It will be no
objection to such appointment that the Arbitrator so
appointed. It will be no objection to such appointment that
the Arbitrator so appointed is a servant of the Authority,
that he had to deal with the matters to which this
Agreement relates and that in the course of his duties, as
such servant of the Authority, he had expressed views on all
or any of the matters in dispute or differences. The award of
the arbitrator, so appointed shall be final and binding on the
Parties. The Arbitrator may, with the consent of the parties,
enlarge, from time to time, the time for making and
publishing the award. The venue of the arbitration shall be
at New Delhi.”
28.A reading of the License Agreement makes it very clear that
it is determinable one. Once it is determined in accordance with the
contractual terms, it is always open to the parties to the Agreement to
challenge the same as per the terms and conditions provided in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Agreement. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be
accepted for the reason that the petitioner's License Agreement by itself
lapsed on 22.09.2020. Secondly, he has not chosen to challenge the
termination notice given by the respondents as early as on 12.02.2018 which
was periodically extended after termination of the License in terms of 2017
Regulations as well as 2018 Regulations. It was extended by communication
dated 19.06.2018, 04.06.2019, 14.10.2019 and 17.03.2020. The petitioner
could have chosen to challenge the termination then and there. Having failed
to challenge the termination and having failed to submit his bid to participate
in the tender process, the petitioner cannot complain of violation of equality.
The petitioner at his option has not chosen to participate in the tender process
and therefore, he cannot claim any equal treatment.
29.Equally, the petitioner is not entitled to complain of hardship
caused to the passengers or Airlines. If at all the Airlines have any grievance
over the deficiency in service provided by the second respondent, it is open
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
to them to raise litigations against the second respondent or the deficiency of
the service provider. But, at any cost, the petitioner has no locus to complain
about the violation of Regulation 3(4) of the 2018 Regulations in the writ
petition filed in respect of grant of Airport Entry Passes and to continue its
operations under the second respondent. Therefore, there is no locus standi to
the petitioner to maintain the writ petition.
30.In so far as the ground of malafide is concerned, the
petitioner does not make out any valid grounds. The Arbitration raised by the
petitioner was dismissed by the Arbitrator. It does not have any connection to
the enactment of 2018 Regulations. By the statutory force, the contract had
been terminated and as per Regulation 7 of the 2018 Regulations, the
petitioner becomes a non-entitled Agency and thereby, they are not entitled to
continue beyond 31.10.2018, much less, beyond 30.06.2019. Even otherwise,
the License Agreement by itself lapsed on 22.09.2020. It is true to state that
when the State in its executive capacity acts arbitrarily even in contractual
field, the writ petition is maintainable. But in the instant case, the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
petitioner has no statutory rights as the License issued under the Regulations
had lapsed by efflux of time and that he is not fighting with the strength of
existing and enforceable License, but on an expired License. After the lapse
of License period, the petitioner has no right to continue as a Licensee under
the second respondent. Even assuming the public interest involved and the
petitioner is entitled, to continue, as per their own prayer, it is till a regular
Agency is appointed.
31.As submitted by the respondents, regular Ground Handling
Agency has already been appointed on 12.01.2021 and the Letter of Indent of
Award (LOIA) was also issued. In such circumstances, the writ petition by
itself becomes infructuous. Therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to the
relief sought for by them as they have no locus as well as legal right to
continue as a Licensee under the second respondent. Hence, I find no merits
in the claim made by the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
32.At the time of pronouncing the order, the learned Senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to
remove their materials and seeks some time.
33.In response, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India
appearing for the respondents has stated that permission will be granted to
the petitioner to remove their materials from tomorrow onwards.
34.The statements made by either side are recorded.
35.Accordingly, the Airports Authority of India is directed to
permit the petitioner to remove their materials from tomorrow onwards.
16 / 06 / 2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Note : Issue order copy on 16/06/2021
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Government of India
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Chairman
Airport Authority of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 003.
3.The Airport Director
Airport Authority of India
Chennai Airport
Chennai – 600 027.
4.The Director General
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
Sri Aurobindo Marg
Opp. Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi – 110 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
WP NO.20314 OF 2020
16 / 06 / 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
