IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Passenger Service Fee (Security Component) can be utilized for capital expenditures related to security, contrary to the government's directive.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior designate counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Narsimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“...to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction; more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned communication issued in Proceedings No. AV.13024/03/2011-AS (Pt.I) dated 18.02.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the petitioner's Constitutional rights and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders...”

PERUSED THE RECORD

3. The proceedings dated 09.05.2006 vide File No.AV 13024/047/2003-SS of the 3rd respondent, reads as under:

“Consequent to allowing private companies, Joint Venture Companies to own and operate airports in the Country, manner and mode of collection of Passenger Service Fee (PSF) at airports have been engaging the attention of the Government for some time. The matter has been deliberated with Airports Authority of India and other airport operators and it has now been decided that:-

i) CISF will be deployed as per the assessment of BCAS at airports operated by JVCs or private operators also.

ii) Passenger Service Fee (PSF) at airports would be collected by the respective Airport Operator, which could be AAI, JVC, or a private operator.

iii)The amount of PSF to be collected will be fixed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The amount will continue to be Rs.200/- per passenger till further orders.

iv) The airport operator would retain Rs.70/- towards passenger facilitation.

v) An Escrow account would be opened whenever the airport operator is a JVC or private operator. This account will be operated by the airport operator (not by AAI). Rs.130/- of the PSF collected per passenger by such airport operator would be deposited in the Escrow account by the Airport Operator for payments to be made to CISF. The Escrow account would be subject to Government Audit of CAG.

vi) In case any amount remains, this will be transferred to AAI by the airport operator through a process of mutual consultation for payment to CISF deployed for security purposes at other airports. In case of a dispute, the matter may be referred to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whose decision will be treated as final and binding on both parties.

2. The new procedure will be effective from 01.04.2006.

3. This issues with the approval of the Minister of State for Civil Aviation (Independent Charges).

4. Order dated, 20.06.2007 vide file No.AV.13024/047/2003-SS of the 3rd respondent, reads as under:-

In this Ministry's Order of even no. dated 09.05.2006 on the subject noted above, the following modifications may be made-

(a) Clause (iii) is modified as under-

The amount of PSF to be collected will be fixed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. However, after Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) becomes functional, PSF will be fixed by AERA'.

The amount will continue to be Rs.200/- per embarking passenger till further orders'.

(b) Clause (vi) is modified as under-

'Security Component of PSF, in short PSF (SC) is not a regular revenue income of an airport-operator. PSF (SC) collected at an airport operated by a JVC or a private- operator will be utilized at the airport concerned only to meet the security related expenses of that airport. However, AAI will be considered as a single licencee in respect of its airports for this purpose with liberty to pool the PSF (SC) collections from such airports and use the same for meeting the security related expenses at any of its airport'.

2. This issues with the approval of the Minister of State for Civil Aviation (Independent Charge)

5. The Interim Order of this Court, dated 13.07.2012 passed in WPMP.No.27346 of 2012 in W.P.No.21341 of 2012, read as under:-

"Prima facie, this Court finds that even according to the respondents, proceedings dated 16-04-2010 through whic