PC :

1. Not on board. Upon mentioning and by consent, taken on board.

2. This is a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) dealing with disputes and differences between the parties in connection with two Concession Agreements ― one dated April 7, 2015 in relation to bridge handling operations, and another dated May 19, 2018 relating to ground handling operations in the Mumbai International Airport (collectively “Agreement”). The Agreement is evidently for an initial period of thirty years renewable for the further period of thirty years. The Respondent itself is a concessionaire from the Airports Authority of India, which is also a joint venture partner and shareholder in the Respondent.

3. The disputes between the parties centre around termination of the Agreement effected by a notice dated May 15, 2025 issued by the Respondent pursuant to an order dated May 15, 2025, by which a Ministry of Civil Aviation acting through the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (“BCAS”) revoked the security clearance granted to the Petitioner with immediate effect “in the interest of national security”. The Respondent has terminated the Agreement and directed the Petitioner to hand over all the equipments and properties of the Petitioner deployed at the Mumbai International Airport along with the list of the same, and all the employees, personnel and staff discharging their duties to another company called Indo Thai Airport Management Services Private Limited (“Indo Thai”), which was nominated as a pro tem replacement operator.

4. Two days later, on May 17, 2025, the Respondent issued a tender notice for provision of a concession for the same services which would lead to a new replacement operator being appointed, irrevocably bringing the role of the Petitioner in the Mumbai International Airport to an end.

5. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner presents one fundamental grievance. He would submit that the termination of the Agreement is subject to a specific framework envisaged in the Agreement and ordinarily he would have been granted a thirty – day cure period for the termination to take effect whereas within a matter of days he has had to hand over his entire operations to Indo Thai.

6. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Respondent submits that on the very same day as the revocation of the security clearance, the Petitioner itself had issued a notice to all its business partners in India indicating that owing to the security clearance being revoked, the Petitioner has with immediate effect, raised its hands and disowned any and all liability arising out of ground handling at Indian airports. A copy of the advisory issued by the Petitioner in this regard has been tendered, is marked ‘X’ for identification, and is taken on record.

7. It would appear that the following prima facie factual position can be discerned:-

a) The Agreement is for a long period of potentially sixty years, and of at least thirty years, subject to compliance with its terms and conditions;

b) On May 15, 2025, the Petitioner lost its security clearance granted by the Government of India;

c) Not being backed by valid authorization to operate ground handling services at the airport, the Respondent has sought to terminate the Agreement and to have the Petitioner replaced.;

d) Since the provision of ground handling at the airport is a public utility, which has to be universally supplied, it would be apparent that a pro tem arrangement to conduct the ground handling would be necessitated, which has led to Indo Thai providing such services;

e) If the tender for a replacement operator is concluded, it would irrevocably replace the Petitioner in respect of the Agreement.

8. Learned Counsel for the parties jointly submit that the Delhi High Court is seized of a Writ Petition in connection with an identical ground handling concession in respect of the Delhi International Airport informing the same BCAS order dated May 15, 2025, and