Disposed

Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC1 Sept 2011W.P.(C)/6376/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition clarified that a challenge to interim tariff fixation information calls does not preclude compliance, and granted an extension to submit information, waiving fines or prosecution if complied with by 15th September 2011.

What did the court decide?

Time granted till 15th September 2011 to submit information; no fine or prosecution in default.

Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Vs Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1^st September, 2011

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 6376/2011

¶4

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Gopal Subramaniyam and Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocates and Mr. Ankur Chawla, Ms. Pallavi Langar and Mr.Shiv Shankar, Advs.

¶6

Versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Koplin Kaur, Advs. for R-1.

¶9

Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Rajat Brar and Mr. Ankit Jain, Advs. for R-2. Captain Kapil Chaudhari, Legal Director of R-2.

¶10

CORAM :-

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶12

Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary in the Digest?

¶15

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶16

The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 11^th May, 2011 of the Appellate Tribunal under the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority

¶17

W.P.(C) No.6376/2011 Page 1 of 6

¶18

of India Act, 2008, dismissing the Appeal No. 2/2011 preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable.

¶19

The said appeal had been preferred by the petitioner against the Order No.13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011 passed by Airport Economic Regulatory Authority constituted under the said Act.

¶20

The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that Section 17(b) and Section 18 of the Act permit appeals against “any” order/direction/decision of the Authority and thus the Appellate Tribunal is in error in holding the appeal to be not maintainable.

¶21

However, the Order No.13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011 is but a stage/step in the process of ultimate fixation of tariff by the Authority. Upon it being put to the senior counsel for the petitioner as to how the challenge to the successive stages in the decision making process can be entertained and which if entertained would not allow the final decision to be made and that the challenge if any has to be to the final decision only, the senior counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the petitioner would be satisfied if it is clarified by this Court that all pleas as taken by the petitioner in the challenge to the Order 13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011 would be available to the

¶22

W.P.(C) No.6376/2011 Page 2 of 6

¶23

petitioner against the challenge if any required to the final order or to any subsequent order. It is further informed that in pursuance to the order No. 13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011, an Order No. 14 has already been passed by the Authority and which is subject matter of the challenge before the Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.7 of 2011 which is being considered by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶24

The senior counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has stated that in fact it was so observed by the Appellate Tribunal also while disposing of the appeal No. 2/2011 as not maintainable vide order dated 11^th May, 2011 (supra). He has also fairly stated that he has no objection to it being clarified that the dismissal of the appeal No. 2/2011 would not be construed as the grounds/pleas taken therein being not available to the petitioner in challenge to any subsequent decision in furtherance to the Order No. 13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011.

¶25

6. It is clarified accordingly.

¶26

The senior counsel for the petitioner has however drawn attention to the notice dated 16^th August, 2011 to show cause issued by the Authority to the petitioner for non compliance of directions issued in pursuance to the

¶27

W.P.(C) No.6376/2011 Page 3 of 6

¶28

Order No. 13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011 (supra). It is contended that once the challenge to Order No. 13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011 is open, the petitioner cannot be threatened with fines and prosecution for non compliance of any consequent direction.

¶29

Notice dated 16^th August, 2011 to show cause has been issued for alleged failure of the petitioner to submit information. The Authority under Section 13 of the Act is entitled to call for any information. The Authority in the process of fixation of tariff has called for information from the petitioner. Merely because the challenge to Order No. 13/2010-11 dated 12^th January, 2011 is open, would not mean that the petitioner is not required to furnish the information. The senior counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the intent of the petitioner is not to disobey the directions issued under Section 13 and the controversy is as to whether the information submitted is complete or not. It is further stated that an application in this regard has already been moved before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 7/2011 but has not been taken up for consideration as yet.

¶30

I may notice that the Appellate Tribunal has vide order in Appeal No. 7/2011 has already directed the petitioner to, without prejudice to its rights

¶31

W.P.(C) No.6376/2011 Page 4 of 6

¶32

and contentions, submit the information.

¶33

The senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the petitioner desires time till 15^th September, 2011 to submit the remaining information sought.

¶34

The senior counsel for the respondent vehemently objects, stating that sufficient time has already been granted to the petitioner.

¶35

However, to put finality to the matter, it is deemed expedient to grant time till 15^th September, 2011 to the petitioner to submit to the respondent the balance information / particulars sought. Subject to the petitioner furnishing the information by the said date, no fine shall be imposed and no prosecution shall be initiated against the petitioner.

¶36

I may also record the submission of the senior counsel for the respondent as to the maintainability of this petition. It is contended that owing to the provision of appeal under Section 31 of the Act, the writ remedy is not available. However, in view of the above, it is not necessary to deal

¶37

with the said contention. Suffice it is to clarify that merely because this petition has been entertained, would not prevent the respondent from taking

¶38

W.P.(C) No.6376/2011 Page 5 of 6

¶39

the said plea in any further proceedings.

¶40

The petition is disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs.

¶41

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶42

SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 M

¶43

Page 6 of 6

¶44

W.P.(C) No.6376/2011

Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. Union of India and 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

M/S.Bharat Wagon & Engg.Co.Ltd. Vs Govt.of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Agni India Vs Radha Krishan

Major Viveky Rai Vs Union of India & Others

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

D Jayachandra Naidu Vs UOI and Ors.

Classic Papers Converters P.Lt Vs Commissioner of Income Tax I D

Ashok Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Harpal Singh

UOI Vs Gurdial Singh

Rama Pandey Vs Aruna Sharma

Aar Bee Exports Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mithilesh Singh Vs Commanding Officer & Ors.

Angan Lal Aggarwal Vs the Directorate of Education & Ors.

Meenakshi Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Shiromani Pal Vs D.D.A. & Anr.