IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 20314 of 2020 and W.M.P. Nos.25098 and 25100 of 2020 and 2425 of 2021
Decided On : 16-06-2021
Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 - Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 14 ,226 and 227 – Notice – Termination contract - License Agreement - Appointment of an agency for Ground Handling Services was made Airports Authority of India (General Management Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 - These Regulations came to be amended / modified periodically and new Regulations were issued - Regulations is superseded by Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations - Agencies which were not appointed as per Regulations shall not be allowed to continue after unless extended by Government of India - Held, Equally petitioner is not entitled to complain of hardship caused to passengers or Airlines - If at all Airlines have any grievance over deficiency in service provided by second respondent it is open to them to raise litigations against second respondent or deficiency of service provider - But at any cost petitioner has no locus to complain about violation of Regulation 3(4) of Regulations in writ petition filed in respect of grant of Airport Entry Passes and to continue its operations under second respondent - Therefore there is no locus standi to petitioner to maintain writ petition - Writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
The petitioner was granted License to carry on the Ground Handling Services to interested Airlines at Airports at Chennai and Kolkata as per the International Standard on 29.11.2010. The License Agreement was entered on that date with contractual terms and conditions. As per Clause 1(a) of the License Agreement, the License commenced on 23.09.2010 for a period of ten years from 23.09.2010 to 22.09.2020 unless terminated earlier under the provisions of that Agreement.
2. The appointment of an agency for Ground Handling Services was made under Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (in short “2007 Regulations”). These Regulations came to be amended / modified periodically and new Regulations were issued. The 2007 Regulations is superseded by Ministry of Civil Aviation (Ground Handling Services) Regulations 2017 (in short “2017 Regulations”). Thereafter, new Regulations viz., Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 (in short “2018 Regulations”) was issued in supersession of 2017 Regulations.
3. As per Regulation 3(4) of 2018 Regulations, at the Airport having annual passenger throughput of ten million passengers per annum or above there shall be at least three Ground Handling Agencies and where the passengers throughput is less than ten million passengers per annum, the Airport Operator shall appoint Ground Handling Agencies not exceeding three.
4. As per Regulation 7(1) of the 2018 Regulations, all Airport Operators were mandated to complete the selection process of number of Ground Handling Agencies by 31st October 2018 unless extended by Government of India.
5. As per Regulation 7(2) of the 2018 Regulations, the Ground Handling Agencies so appointed shall commence its operations not later than 30th June 2019.
6. As per Regulation 7(3) of the 2018 Regulations, the Agencies which were not appointed as per the 2018 Regulations, shall not be allowed to continue after 31st October 2018 unless extended by Government of India. However, the petitioner / Agency was granted extension of time beyond 30.06.2019.
7. It is also pertinent to note that as per the contractual terms under 2017 Regulations, 180 days notice in writing shall be issued for terminating the contract. The second respondent issued a notice dated 12.02.2018 that in accordance with 2017 Regulations, new Agency would be appointed and that the existing arrangement would come to an end on expiry of 180 days from the date of said notice. The time was again extended by another notice dated 19.06.2018 extending the period upto 30.06.2019; and by notice dated 04.06.2019 extending the period upto 30.12.2019; and by communication dated 14.10.2019, extending the License till 30.03.2020; and by communication dated 17.03.2020, the License period further extended till 22.09.2020. Thereafter, the License Agreement was not extended. As such, on 23.09.2020, the License was not in force.
8. Thereafter, a Circular dated 01.10.2020 was issued specifying the interim arrangement wherein the Airlines at Chennai and Kolkata Airports can have temporary arrangement with any Government Ground Handling Agencies having valid security clearance upto 31.12.2020 or commencement of operation by AAICLAS whichever is earlier. The Airlines Operator Council made a communication to the second respondent raising their concern for having Ground Handling Services with Air India Airport Services Limited (AIASL) and requested for grant of Airport Entry Passes (AEP) in favour of the petitioner / Agency. However, it was informed by the respondents that temporary arrangements will be only upto 31.12.2020.
9. Subsequently, on 22.12.2020, a communication was issued by the first respondent that Airport Entry Passes will be extended to all the existing Ground Handling Agencies at Airports except Chennai, Kolkata, Goa and Pune. In respect of Chennai, Kolkata, Goa and Pune Airports, Airports Authority of India (AAI), the secon
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....
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private company, even if it discharges a public function, unless the contract of service is governed or regulated b....
The petitioner, as a commission vendor, has no legal right to assert that he can continue to act as a commission agent from the stall located at Platform no. 1 and to assail the decision of the respo....
The termination of a license agreement is valid if it is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and the public interest outweighs the personal interest of the licensee.
The court held that the termination of a license by a public authority is not arbitrary or discriminatory if it is done in accordance with the terms of the license agreement and is necessary to achie....
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.