IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
Ex-armymens Welfare And Security Services Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12379 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 – Rule 15 – Airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 – Regulations 3 and 7(4) – Airport operator has right to appoint ground handling agents including ground handling agency through a transparent bidding process – Petitioner is having no valid contract with Airport Operator and Airline Operators have already terminated their contracts with petitioner – Validity of security clearance to petitioner is till validity of contract with Airport Operator – Security clearance given by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security to petitioner does not confer any right to it to acquire ground handling business at airport if he did not participate in transparent bidding process and if otherwise not found eligible as per extant Regulations 2018 – It was petitioner who chose not to participate in transparent bidding process for appointment of ground handling agents and continued to render services of ground handling to Airlines on the basis of agreement entered into with petitioner and Airline Operators being fully aware of fact that after coming into force Regulations 2018, ground handling agents shall be appointed by Airport Operators by transparent bidding process – As such, plea of estoppel, legitimate expectation taken by petitioner is not tenable – Security clearance is conditional security clearance subject to valid contract with airport operators and security clearance does not confer any rights to petitioner to acquire business at Airports – Writ Application dismissed. (Paras 7, 22, 29, 42, 53, 54 and 56)
2005(4) PLJR 691; (1991) 4 SCC 54; (2001) 7 SCC 425 ; (2006) 8 SCC 103 ; (2010) 13 SCC 427 ; (2011) 3 SCC 436 ; (2011) 5 SCC 142 ; (2010)3 SCC 274 ; (2015) 9 SCC 132 ; Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors in WP NO. 20314/2020 – Distinguished.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents through videoconferencing.
2. The petitioner which is a Private Limited Company has filed the present writ application for following relief(s):-
"(i) To hold and declare that the notification dated 29.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Joint Director, Bureau of Civil Aviation and the letter dated 30.06.2021 issued by the Section Officer, Airport Authority of India Section, Ministry of Civil Aviation by which the services of the agencies performing ground handling services at the airports enlisted therein has been extended from 30.06.2021 upto 15.07.2021 & 31.07.2021 respectively will not be applicable to the petitioner who is performing ground handling services in Patna and Ranchi Airports as the Security clearance having been granted in terms of the airport Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 whose security clearance is valid for a period of 5 years with effect from 11.06.2019.
(ii) To alternatively quash the said decisions/letters dated 29.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Joint Director, Bureau of Civil Aviation and the letter dated 30.06.2021 issued by the Section Officer, Airport Authority of India Section, Ministry of Civil Aviation limiting the ground handling services of the petitioner for a period of only upto 15.07.2021 contrary to the security clearance granted to it for period of 5 years w.e.f. 11.06.2019.
(iii) To issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge the ground handling services in the Patna and Ranchi Airports in light of the security clearance granted to it for 5 years w.e.f. 11.06.2019 pursuant to which agreement has been entered with the airlines namely Air Asia (India) Ltd, Vistara and Go Air for ground handling work.
(iv) To pass interim lex parte interim order permitting the petitioner to continue operation of its ground handling services in the Patna and Ranchi Airports in light of the existing agreement entered with the different Airlines pursuant to the security clearance granted vide letter dated 11.06.2019 which is valid for 5 years and/or stay the operation of impugned letters dated 29.06.2021 & 30.06.2021.
(v) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner-company was granted security clearance by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Ministry of Civil Aviation in the year 2013 vide its letter dated 20.12.2013 for providing ground handling services at various airports in India including Ranchi Airport. The validity of the security clearance was for a period of five years from the date of issuance of the letter. In pursuance of said clearance, the petitioner-company entered into an agreement with different airlines for providing ground handling services to them and according to the petitioner, it performed the ground handling services with due care and precautions and there was no complaint against it whatsoever from any quarter. It has further been stated that Central Government enacted a Rule called Aircraft Rules 1937 exercising powers under Section 5 of the Aircraft Act 1934 for securing the safety of aircraft operation as well as licensing in respect of regulation of aerodromes. Rule 92 deals with ground handling services and ensure a competitive environment by allowing the airline operators at the airport to engage, without any restriction, any of the ground handling service provider who is permitted by the Central Government to provide such service subject to the condition that such ground handling service provider shall have the security clearance of the Central Government.
4. As per Rule-15 of the Airc
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mudappa & Ors as (1991) 4 SCC 54
Baraka Overseas Traders v. Director General of Foreign Trade & Anr as (2006) 8 SCC 103
Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Devi Multiplex & Anr v. State of Gujarat & Ors as (2015) 9 SCC 132
Orissa & Ors. v. Mamata Mohanty as (2011) 3 SCC 436
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors as (2010) 13 SCC 427
Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay & Ors as (2001) 7 SCC 425
Smt. Clara Ainda v. The State of Bihar as 2005(4) PLJR 691
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd as (2010) 3 SCC 274
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of existing GHAs to continue providing services were safeguarded by the court's various orders, but the appellants did not have an ....
The judgment established that Ground Handling Agents have no inherent right to continue providing services once a third-party agency has been duly identified in accordance with the applicable regulat....
Existing ground handling agents lack an indefeasible right to operate once new agencies are duly identified in accordance with regulations, even if formal operations have yet to begin.
The court upheld the authority of CIAL to modify tender conditions for ground handling services, emphasizing the need for a competitive environment and the absence of established conflicts of interes....
The cancellation of an Air Operator Permit without disclosing reasons for denial of security clearance violates principles of natural justice, rendering the process invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.