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 small enterprises.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research (CAPSR), seeks quashing of the Requests For Proposal (RFPs) issued by the respondent no.2 for engaging agencies to provide Ground Handling Services at Groups C and D airports. The impugned RFP in respect of Group C airports was issued on 15.04.2020 bearing tender ID 2020_AAI_54002_1, whereas the impugned RFP of Groups D-1 and D-2 airports were issued on 28.07.2020 bearing tender ID 2020_AAI_46811_1.

2. The petitioner, a non-profit organization registered in 2012, claims to be carrying out independent research, advisory and advocacy in the field of civil aviation. As per the petitioner, its members comprise of firms and entities providing services in the aviation sector, including the micro, small and medium enterprises providing Ground Handling Services (hereinafter referred to as `GHS') across the airports in the country. The petitioner's grievance against the impugned RFPs is that the eligibility criteria contained therein are not only a radical departure from the past, but also stipulate onerous technical and financial qualifications, thereby rendering most of the extant ground handling agencies ineligible to participate in the tender process, especially those which have been providing GHS at the smaller airports of the country, that fall under the categories of Groups C, D-1 and D-2 airports, for the last many years. The petitioner is also aggrieved that the prescribed technical and financial qualifications have no correlation with the ground handling services that the service providers are expected to provide at the Groups C, D-1 and D-2 airports, and that the same have been arbitrarily and whimsically tailored with a view to oust the existing GHS providers, who have been providing these services for years, without any complaint.

3. The respondent no.1 is the Ministry of Civil Aviation under the Government of India which is responsible for formulating national policies and programmes for development and regulation of the civil aviation sector, while respondent no.2 - the Airport Authority of India, a Category-I Public Sector Enterprise, is a statutory body established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The respondent no.2 works under the aegis of the respondent no.1 and is tasked with creating, maintaining, upgrading, and managing the civil aviation infrastructure in India; it controls and administers nearly 83 domestic airports within the territory of India, which cater to both - scheduled and non-scheduled aircrafts.

4. The term `Ground Handling Services' (GHS), which is the subject matter of the impugned RFPs, includes in its fold a wide array of activities integral to the smooth functioning of an aircraft, and crucial to the health of an airport and all aircrafts operating therein. On 15.12.2017, the respondent no.1 notified the `Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations 2017' (hereinafter referred to as `2017 Regulations'), that exhaustively specified and bifurcated the various services included under the term `ground handling', one being that of `Ramp Handling' and the other being `Traffic Handling'. The 2017 Regulations were, however, superseded by the Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 issued by the respondent no.2 with the prior approval of the Central Government (hereinafter referred to as the `2018 Regulations'). Though the petitioner has only referred to the