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.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 9995/2022 (Modification Of O. D. 15-07-2021) in W.P.(C)-6432/2021;

CM APPL. 9625/2022 (Modification Of O. D. 16-09-2021) in W.P.(C)-10120/2021;

1. These petitions had been preferred assailing the action of the respondents in disengaging the petitioners as agents which were providing Ground Handling Services [GHS] at Civil Airports regulated by the respondent. Insofar as the application in W.P.(C) 6432/2021 is concerned, modification is sought in respect of the petitioners who are providing GHS at Srinagar and Jammu airports. In W.P.(C) 10120/2021, the prayer for modification is addressed with respect to the airports at Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada. For the purposes of considering the prayer for modification, it would be pertinent to notice the following facts.

2. The petitioners were Ground Handling Agents which had been duly engaged by scheduled operators. The respondents in 2018 had framed appropriate regulations for enlistment and selection of Ground Handling Agents. The case of the petitioners here rests on the provisions made in Regulation 7(4) of the Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 [2018 Regulations] which reads thus:

"(4) Any agency which is not permitted under these regulations and carrying out the ground handling activities on the commencement of these regulations, at an airport or civil enclave other than those referred to in sub-regulation (3), shall be allowed to continue till the 30th June, 2019 or till thirty days from the commencement of operations by the ground handling agencies duly appointed under these regulations, whichever is earlier."

3. Initially, when the writ petition was entertained, a learned Judge of the Court on 15 July 2021 had proceeded to notice the grievance raised and recorded the contention of the petitioners that the respondents had acted arbitrarily in divesting the petitioner from providing GHS contrary to the 2018 Regulations. It was contended that till such time as a ground handling agent is duly identified and takes over the operations at a particular airport, the petitioners would have a right to continue to operate. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the Court proceeded to pass an order requiring maintenance of status quo. It is that order which has continued till the present.

4. From the record, it further transpires that a contempt petition came to be filed bearing No.609/2021 in which after hearing parties, the Court passed the following order:

1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of this Court's order dated 29.07.2021 in W.P.(C) 6406/2021 on the part of the respondent.

2. After hearing the parties at length, even though it is evident that the respondents have not fully complied with the directions issued by this Court, yet they cannot be said to be in deliberate or willful non compliance.

3. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that since the respondents have been permitting other similarly situated ground handling agencies to provide their services to various Airline Operators on the basis of their specific request, as was being done prior to 29.07.2021, when this Court passed the interim order directing status quo, the respondents during the pendency of the writ petitions will extend similar treatment to the petitioners in W.P.(C) 6406/2021 and other connected writ petitions and