A division bench of the Madras High Court dismissed
two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions seeking quashing of contract
given by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to Bhadra International (India) Limited
of New Delhi, a joint venture consortium partner along with Novia International
Consulting APS of Denmark, for providing ground handling services at the
airports at Chennai and Kolkatta.
The bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and
Justice Aruna Jagadeesan upheld the contract, while dismissing the PILs from
Oveyam Ranjan of West Shenoy Nagar and Indian Airports Ground Handling Agents
Association, on March 11. The petitions sought to quash the order dated
September 9, 2009 of the AAI awarding the contract to Bhadra
International. Petitioners contended that the eligibility conditions of
the tender were tailor-made to suit Bhadra.
Rejecting the contention, the bench noted that the
Federation of Indian Airlines and others comprising airline carriers had filed
a similar petition before the High Court in New Delhi. Having found the
weakness in the case before the Delhi High Court, the interested persons had
prompted the petitioners to file the present PILs at the 11th hour stating that
no other PIL had been filed in any other High Court on the same issue. The
Delhi High Court had dismissed that petition.
It was clear that the PILs were filed at the behest
of some interested persons. The bona fides of the petitioners were at stake.
With material available on record, the bench said it had no doubt or hesitation
to hold that the petitioners had resorted to this prompted and personal
interest litigations at the behest of persons trying to create obstacles for
the successful bidder to commence its operations.
and s � d t �5 �
milar petitions are filed in any
other High Courts at the same time. The bench said that the writ petitions have been filed, since they "found the weakness in the case before the Delhi High Court, the interested persons have prompted a third party/ the petitioners to file the present writ petition as a PIL that too in the eleventh hour."
These petitions were filed "undoubtedly with an ill intention of preventing Bhadra International to commence its operation," they said.
The petitioner, who posed as the president of a labour union, has not raised any issue with regard to any labour problem so far and this writ petition has been filed by her only at the behest of some interested persons, the bench said.
"The bona fides of the petitioners were at stake and given the materials available on record, we have no doubt or hesitation to hold that the petitioners have resorted to this prompted and personal interest litigation at the behest of the persons who approached the Delhi High Court and trying to create obstacles for the successful bidder to commence its operation," it said.
"This, in our view, is nothing but a proxy litigation indulging in by the petitioners. The CBI has conducted an inquiry into the whole episode earlier and filed its report giving clean chit to the issue in hand," it said.
Refusing the accept the contentions of the petitions that only with an ulterior motive, Chennai and Kolkata airports were clubbed together by officials, the bench said, "since the said decision is not only the policy decision of the government, but the same has not caused any financial loss to the AAI or the government of India."
"In a commercial contract matter like the one in hand, if a free hand is not given to the government, it would result in the cost to the exchequer," the bench said.
No comments:
Post a Comment