Disposed

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2012PIL/25/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding the renewal of a lease for airport land, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay held the petition premature as the Central Government had not taken a final decision on revised terms, disposing of the matter with liberty to approach later.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to make representation to Central Government and file fresh petition after final decision.

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

pil-25-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.25 OF 2012

¶7

M/s.Resources of Aviation Redressal Association & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Shetty for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Kevic Setalwad, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Rui Rodrigues and Mr. N.R. Prajapati for respondent Union of India. Mr. I.M. Chagle, Senior Advocate i/b. Kanaga & Co., for the respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶11

DATE : 06 August 2012.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

In this petition, purporting to be public interest litigation, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2-Airport Authority of India, to call for public tenders for the grant of the future lease of the land admeasuring 18000 sq. meters near the Air Port at Mumbai for which lease was earlier granted in favour of respondent No.3 by lease deeds executed in the year 1983 and on which respondent No.3 has constructed a hotel with an investment, according to respondent No.3, to the tune of about Rs.500 crores.

1/4

pil-25-12

gopi

It transpires from the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 that the proposal to renew the lease in favour of respondent No.3 on revised terms and conditions is still pending with the Government of India-respondent No.1 herein.

¶19

According to respondent No.3, it has paid nearly Rs.45 crores to respondent No.2 within a period of 29 years under the terms of the lease deeds of 1983. The proposed revised terms are set out in the affidavit dated 2 May 2012 filed by the Senior Manager (Land Management) of respondent No.2 which provides that the lease rent shall be fixed at Rs.1,630/- per sq., meter per annum based on actual built-up area and that the lease rent shall be escalated every financial year based on All India Consumer Price Index (CPI)-Industrial Workers – General) for indexation (i.e. for applying escalation from 1 April 2012, CPI would be based on calendar year 2011) and that the royalty at the rate of 7.5% of GTO proportionate to the land in question payable on quarterly basis, subject to final accounts of turnover duly certified by Chartered Accountant and that all municipal taxes, etc., shall be borne and paid by respondent No.3. The period of license will be 30 years extendable by another 30 years subject to satisfactory performance.

¶20

According to respondent No.3 in the very first year of the renewal period, the lease rent will go up from Rs.2.94 crores to Rs.3.86 crores and the royalty will go up from Rs.2.11 crores to Rs.7.94 crores.

¶21

Mr.Chagla, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3 states under instructions that since the respondent No.2-Airport Authority of India has already suggested revised terms which are much

2/4

gopi

pil-25-12

more stringent than the terms under the lease deed, which period has expired by efflux of time and respondent No.3 as per the said revised terms is paying since 12 July 2012 onwards, no prejudice is being caused to the public exchequer. The proposal is sent to the Central Government and in the meantime temporary extension has been granted on the following terms:-

¶27

“2. Proposal of M/s.HLV for renewal of lease on the revised terms & conditions as negotiated is under consideration and decision will be conveyed on approval of the same by Competent Authority.

¶28

Notwithstanding to the above, it has been decided to extend subject leases temporarily for further period of 6 months from 12.7.2012 or earlier on revised terms & conditions as negotiated between AAI and M/s.HLV as communicated vide this office letter of even no.(387) dated 31.3.2011 except para.2(g) and para – 3. Further grant of temporary extension for 6 months or earlier as the case may be shall not be treated/construed and/or confer any right to M/s.HLV for further extension/renewal.

¶29

The license fee rate for the financial year 2012-13 calculated on FSI 1.32 in respect of subject leases is Rs.2486/- per square metre, per annum (Rs.1883/- PSMPA being present rate of License Fee at CSIA x 1.32 FSI consumed by M/s.HLV). Further, M/s.HLV has to pay Royalty @ 7.5% of GTO proportionate to AAI land i.e. 71.08% (Total area of hotel is 25330 sq.m., AAI's land under reference to the total area is 18,000 sq. m., i.e. 71.08%). The escalation/revision in land license fee shall be as per AAI policy from time to time and HLV shall pay the same without any protest/demur.

¶30

In the eventuality of Competent Authority not agreeing for further renewal of leases, as per para 2 above, M/s.HLV hand over peaceful possession of the land to AAI without any protest/demur and/or seeking/asking for any

3/4

gopi

pil-25-12

compensation thereof.”

¶36

Since the matter is still pending before the Government of India, it is clear that no final decision has been taken so far. The petition is, therefore, premature at this stage.

¶37

On this ground alone we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Central Government and with a further liberty to file a fresh petition after the final decision is taken by the Competent Authority, in case the decision is in favour of respondent No.3.

¶38

It is clarified that we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy which is sought to be raised in the petition.

¶39

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶42

4/4

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist Nanded Thr President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jagdish Surjit Saini Vs the Returning Officer, for the General Election of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Rajkumar Parmeshwar Koli and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Shri. Rajkumar Parmeshwar Koli and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Bahuudeshiya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Uva Sanstha Thr. Its President Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Padmanabh S/O Gajrajsingh Thakur Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Anr.

Janmanch Thr. Its Secty., Rajeev Gajanan Jagtap Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Lillian Pais and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadanand Annappa Shetty Vs Hiralal Manilal Thakkar

Kashinath Lalta Tiwari, Dilip Lalta Tiwari and Bipin Kashinath Tiwari. Vs Subhash Jarda Tiwari and 3 Ors.

Iol Netcom Ltd. Vs Reach Network P.Ltd., and Anr.

Jeumont Electric Vs Jsw Ispat Steel Limited and Ispat Energy Limited

Murmansk Shipping Co. Vs Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr.

Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.