Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, JJ.
Airports Authroity Employees Union (Regd No.3515) Mangaluru International Airport Bajpe Mangaluru, Represented by its Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Secretary to Government Ministry of Civil Aviation, Represented by its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2065 of 2021 (GM-RES-PIL)
Decided On : 14-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - ARTICLES 226 ,227 14 , 16 , 311, 21 and 226 Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Sections 12,3, 22A and 12A - Aircraft Act, 1934 - Aircraft Rules, 1937 - Companies Act, 1956 - Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 - subsection (1) of Section 13 - Registered and recognized Trade Union of employees functioning under Airports Authority of India (AAI) has filed present petition by way of a PIL being aggrieved by decision of Cabinet Committee in respect of privatisation of Airports, subsequent bidding process in matter as well as Cabinet decision accepting bid of respondent No.6. Prayers have also been made for quashing of consequential Concession Agreement - Whether AAI acting within confines of Section 12A, is able to satisfy the mandate of public interest or the interest of better management, in leasing out the Airports - State had bid under RFP an attempt to participate in a commercial venture.
Finding of the Court:
Court do not see any such dispute arising even in State's contention regarding legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, which is solely grounded on communications exchanged between Union Government and State, not having any bearing on their respective powers or authority - Policy of Central Government is not under challenge and even State's bid for lease under RFP, could be maintained only under Section 12A of AAI Act - Dispute essentially is between State and AAI which cannot be said to be a dispute wherein only Hon'ble Supreme Court can be moved under Article 131 of Constitution –Court hence reject preliminary objection raised by learned ASG. - policy decision of the executive are best left to it and a Court should not interfere with the policy decision unless the decision of the authority is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. It has been further held that it is well accepted principle that in complex, social and economic matters, decisions have been taken by the governmental authorities keeping in view the several factors and it is not possible for the Courts to consider competitive claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts. The Courts are ill- equipped to substitute the decisions and in the present case also it is purely a policy decision of the Government of India to lease out the airports for better management and functioning. Therefore, as the petitioner-AAE Union has not been able to point out violation of statutory provision of law and the constitutional provisions.
Result: writ petition Dismissed
ORDER :
The petitioner-Airport Authority Employees (AAE) Union before this Court is a registered and recognized Trade Union of employees functioning under the Airports Authority of India (AAI) has filed this present petition by way of a PIL being aggrieved by the decision of the Cabinet Committee dated 08.11.2018 in respect of privatisation of Airports, the subsequent bidding process in the matter as well as Cabinet decision dated 03.07.2019 accepting the bid of respondent No.6. Prayers have also been made for quashing of the consequential Concession Agreement dated 14.02.2020.
2. The petitioner-AAE Union in the writ petition has stated that the AAI was constituted by an Act of the Parliament and came into existence on 01.04.1995 by merging erstwhile National Airports Authority of India and International Airports Authority of India. The Airports Authority of India manages nearly 129 Airports in India which includes 23 International Airports, 09 Customs Airports, 77 Domestic Airports and 20 Civil / Defence Enclaves. It has been further stated that the Union Cabinet held on 08.11.2018 granted an approval for leasing out six Airports namely Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Lucknow, Guwahati, Thiruvanatapuram and Mangaluru Airports under the Public Private Partnership (PPP). The Cabinet Committee also constituted Empowered Group of Secretaries, (EGOS) headed by CEO, NITI Ayog on the issue of privatization of Airports through Public Private Partnership Appraisal Committee (PPPAC) under the PPP. It has been further stated that based upon the Cabinet Note dated 08.11.2018, the AAI prepared and submitted the PPPAC Memo, Draft Request for Proposal (RPF-Financial Bid), Draft Concession Agreement to PPPAC on 06.12.2018 and PPPAC in turn approved 'In Principle Approval' and after obtaining the approval, Request for Proposal (RFP) and Draft Concession Agreement (DCA) was uploaded on the website on 14.12.2018. It has been further stated, as per the RFP the entity quoting the highest "per passenger fee" for domestic passengers was to emerge as the highest bidder.
3. The petitioner's contention is that such a stand was contrary to the international standards as well as the norms of the bidding process. There was no base price fixed in the matter and finally nine bidders participated in the bidding process. The DCA had been revised on 08.02.2019 and the Technical Bids were opened by AAI on 16.02.2019 and the financial bids were published on 25.02.2019 and the results were also published on the same day. It has been further stated that respondent No.6-M/s. Adani Enterprises emerged as the highest bidder for all six Airports. It has been further stated that the Cabinet Committee in its meeting held on 03.07.2019 granted approval in respect of the bid offered by respondent No.6 for three Airports including the Mangaluru Airport. The petitioner-AAE Union represented and took objection in the matter in respect of privatisation of the airport by submitting a representation on 03.07.2019. The petitioner-AAE Union in view of this has raised various grounds before this Court and the contention of the petitioner-AAE Union is that the entire action of the respondents in respect of privatisation of the airports is contrary to the statutory provisions as contained under Sections 12 and 12A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (for short 'AAI Act of 1994'). Under Section 12A of the Act, only certain functions of the Airport can be leased out and the concession Agreement executed in the present case is much beyond the scope of provisions of the Act. The petitioner-AAE Union has contended that following irregularities took place in the matter, which are reproduced as under:
(ii) Undue urgency on the part of Civil Aviation Ministry/AAI;
(iii) Undue delay on the part of Central Government in granting Final Approval;
(iv) Absence of
The provisions of a statute must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid inconsistency between its sections.
Tender – Terms and conditions of Invitation to Tender are within domain of tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, same being in realm of contract, unless they are arb....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
The court upheld the Railway's amended catering policy, emphasizing judicial restraint in policy-making and affirming that amendments serve public interest by enhancing food quality and accountabilit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
