Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Sri Aurea Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
LPA 696 of 2022 & CM Appls. 52336 of 2022, 52338 of 2022, 52616 of 2023 & 52617 of 2023
Decided On : 10-10-2023
Ground Handling Services - Challenge to Regulations - 2018 Regulations - Regulation 7 of the 2018 Regulations - The judgment discusses the challenge to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018. It highlights the provisions of Regulation 7, which provide the manner and timeline for the transition from existing Ground Handling Agency (GHA) entities to the duly selected and appointed GHAs. The court emphasizes the timelines stipulated in Regulation 7 and the extensions granted by the respondents. The judgment also references the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 6615-6616/2022, which upheld the tender conditions and eligibility criteria. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the 2018 Regulations and the rights of existing GHAs to continue providing services.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Ground Handling Agencies (GHAs), challenged the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018, after the Ministry notified the regulations for the appointment of GHAs through a fair and transparent auction process. The appellants sought to continue providing Ground Handling Services at airports owned by the respondent/Airport Authority of India (AAI) despite the transition to new GHAs.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge, affirming that the rights of existing GHAs to continue providing services were safeguarded by the court's various orders. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with costs, emphasizing that the appellants' litigations had attempted to stall the fair operation of the Ground Handling Services system in airports.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellants' contentions regarding their vested rights to provide Ground Handling Services, the alleged violation of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights, and the interpretation of the 2018 Regulations. The court also addressed the challenge to the tender conditions and eligibility criteria upheld by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the 2018 Regulations, the timelines stipulated in Regulation 7, and the extensions granted by the respondents. The court emphasized that the interim orders in favor of the appellants did not grant them an indefeasible right to continue as GHAs, especially when new GHAs had been selected through a transparent bidding process.
Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 payable by the appellants. The court upheld the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge and noted that the appellants' litigations had attempted to stall the fair operation of the Ground Handling Services system in airports.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.52617/2023
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM APPL.52616/2023
3. Present application has been filed for correction of the order dated 4th September, 2023.
4. Keeping in view the averments in the application, para 3 of the order dated 4th September, 2023 shall now read as under:
"3. Consequently, the present application is allowed and the additional affidavit as well as Annexure R-2/15 is taken on record".
5. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
LPA 696/2022
6. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15th November, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15722/2022 and order dated 21st November, 2022 in Review Petition No. 311/2022. The appellants are Ground Handling Agencies ("GHAs"), being members of an Association namely, Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research ("CAPSR"). They have been operating in different airports across the country rendering Ground Handling Services.
7. Material facts of the present case are as follows:
7.1. The Ground Handling Services of various Airlines operators in different airports all over the country were earlier being handled by several GHAs including the appellants herein. For such purpose, the GHAs entered into Ground Handling Agreements with the respective Airlines operators for providing such services at the airports owned by the respondent/Airport Authority of India ("AAI") under the permission/letter of engagement issued by the AAI.
7.2. The GHAs including the appellants continued to provide the Ground Handling Services at different airports owned by the AAI under the strength of general extensions issued by the AAI.
7.3. The Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India notified the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2017, which provided for appointment of GHAs through a fair and transparent auction process. Subsequently, on 30th November, 2018, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India notified the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 ("2018 Regulations").
7.4. The respondent/AAI floated tenders on 28th July, 2020 for procuring Ground Handling Services at airports classified into different categories like A, B, C and D. A writ petition, being W.P.(C) 5722/2020 came to be filed against the conditions of tender floated for group "D" airports. The said writ petition was allowed and the tender was quashed by this court vide its order dated 14th July, 2021.
7.5. However, the AAI challenged the said order dated 14th July, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5722/2020 by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 6615-6616/2022, Airports Authority of India Vs. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research ("CAPSR") and Others before the Supreme Court. By judgment dated 30th September, 2022, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed on behalf of AAI thereby holding that none of the tender conditions/eligibility criteria can be said to be arbitrary and/or malafide and/or actuated by bias. Further, it was held that CAPSR had no locus standi to file writ petition before this Court.
7.6. It may be noted herein that as per Regulation 7 of the 2018 Regulations, the process of selection of the new GHAs as per the said Regulations was to be completed by 31st October, 2018. Further, the new GHAs so appointed were to commence their operations not later than 30th June, 2019. Since the conditions of tender floated for selection of new GHAs in terms of 2018 Regulations were subject matter of litigation and the time period for completion of selection process in terms of Regulation 7 of the 2018 Regulations had already lapsed, the Ministry of Civil Aviation extended the time for continuance of the service of the existing GHAs like appellants. Thus, vide letter dated 30th June, 2021 issued by the AAI, the approval of the Ministry of Civil Aviation for extension of compliance of ti
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.
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....
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 prescribed eligibility criteria for ground handling services were found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the principles of fair competition and undermining support for micro and smal....
The Court held that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned RFPs were arbitrary and discriminatory, and violated the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the tender con....
The court ruled that the respondent can participate in airport tenders despite existing agreements, emphasizing that competition should not be hindered.
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
