Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru heard a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Airports Authority Employees Union, a registered trade union of employees of the Airports Authority of India (AAI), challenging the privatisation of Mangaluru International Airport. The Union Cabinet, on 08.11.2018, granted in-principle approval for leasing out six airports, including Mangaluru, under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. Following a bidding process, the Cabinet Committee approved the bid of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (respondent No.6) on 03.07.2019, and a Concession Agreement was executed on 14.02.2020. The petitioner contended that the entire process violated the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, specifically Sections 12 and 12A (which permit only limited leasing of airport functions), and Section 21 (which restricts contract periods to 30 years, whereas the concession was for 50 years). Additional grounds included lack of transparency, absence of a feasibility study, failure to fix a minimum per-passenger fee, and that the transfer amounted to a colorable exercise of power causing loss to the public exchequer. The Union of India, in its reply, raised preliminary objections regarding delay and laches, and argued that the petition represented private interest rather than public interest. The matter came up for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum. After hearing arguments, the court reserved judgment and on 14.09.2021 pronounced an order. However, the precise outcome—whether the writ petition was allowed or dismissed—is not discernible from the available text.
Headnote
The provided judgment text does not contain the court's analysis or final decision; therefore, no headnote can be extracted.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the privatisation of Mangaluru Airport and the concession agreement executed with Adani Enterprises Ltd. are valid under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, and whether the bidding process was lawful.
Law Points
- public-private partnership in airports must comply with Airports Authority of India Act
- 1994
- leasing of airport premises under Section 12A
- maximum period of contracts under Section 21
- colorable exercise of power
- public trust doctrine
- Article 14
- Article 226
- Article 227
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (09) 6
WRIT PETITION NO.2065/2021 (GM-RES-PIL)
Satish Chandra Sharma, Acting Chief Justice, and Sachin Shankar Magadum
Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate for Vinayaka B. Vishnu Bhatta; M.B. Naragund, Additional Solicitor General with Gowthamdev C Ullal, CGSC for R4; Santhish S. Nagarale for R-2 to R-4; Smt. Meena Venugopal and B. Pramod for R6 and R7
Airports Authority Employees Union (Regd No.3515), Mangaluru International Airport, Bajpe, Mangaluru, represented by its Secretary Sri Shravan Kumar, aged about 46 years
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation; 2. Airports Authority of India through Chairman; 3. The Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India, Chennai; 4. Airports Director, Airports Authority of India, Mangaluru; 5. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India; 6. Adani Enterprises Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the privatisation of Mangaluru International Airport and the concession agreement entered with a private entity.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner, a registered trade union of employees of the Airports Authority of India, seeks declarations that the entire bidding process and the grant of concession to respondent No.6 are illegal; quashing of the Cabinet decisions dated 08.11.2018 and 03.07.2019; quashing of the Request for Proposal and the Concession Agreement dated 14.02.2020.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contends that the privatisation process violates the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, particularly Sections 12, 12A, and 21, and that the process suffered from irregularities, lack of transparency, and caused loss to the public exchequer.
Issues
Whether the privatisation of Mangaluru Airport through a concession agreement is violative of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, especially its provisions regarding leasing and maximum contract period?
Whether the bidding process was vitiated by irregularities, lack of transparency, and absence of mandatory pre-qualification stages?
Whether the decision to hand over the airport to a private entity amounts to a colorable exercise of power and causes loss to the public exchequer?
Submissions/Arguments
The privatisation is contrary to Sections 12 and 12A of the AAI Act, 1994; the concession agreement exceeds the permissible functions that can be leased; the agreement for 50 years violates Section 21 which limits contracts to 30 years (Petitioner).
No feasibility study or minimum passenger fee was fixed; the process was hasty, lacked transparency, and caused revenue loss; the government is parting with public property without authority, which is a colorable exercise of power (Petitioner).
The petition suffers from delay and laches; the works have progressed to an advanced stage; the petitioner cannot challenge policy decisions on the pretext of PIL; the Union Cabinet granted 'in principle' approval and the process was carried out through the Empowered Group of Secretaries (Respondent-Union of India).
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner-AAE Union has contended that the entire action of the respondents in respect of privatisation of the airports is contrary to the statutory provisions as contained under Sections 12 and 12A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (Para 3)
the impugned concession granted in favour of respondent No.6 i.e., Adani Mangaluru Airports Limited for a period of 50 years violates Section 21 of the Airports Authority of India Act, which provides a maximum period of 30 years for making any contracts (Para 6)
The Union of India-respondent No.1 has filed a detailed reply in the matter and at the outset a ground regarding delay and laches has been raised (Para 11)
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed as a PIL under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing before the Division Bench. After hearing the parties, the court reserved the matter for orders and on 14-09-2021 pronounced an order.
Acts & Sections
- Airports Authority of India Act, 1994: 12, 12A, 21
- Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226, 227
- Aircrafts Rule, 1937: Not specified
