IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2794 OF 2018 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
AIRPORT TOURIST AND TAXI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. M. ABDUL KHADER NEAR PETROL PUMP, P.O. BAJPE MANGALURU-574 142.
(BY SRI. P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. AIRPORT DIRECTOR MANGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT KENJAR BAJPE MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU-574 142 ... APPELLANT 2. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI-110 003.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. DUA ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.28629/2018 [GM-TEN], IN SO FAR AS TO IT PERTAINS TO PERMITTING THE RESPONDENTS TO FINALIZE THE TENDER NOTIFICATION IS CONCERNED AND ALLOW WRIT PETITION NO.28629/2018 [GM-TEN].
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.28629/2018, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner-Association filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the tender notification dated 18.06.2018 (Annexure–A) issued by respondent No.1 inviting tender for licence for “Application Based Cab Aggregator Service” and for a mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2018. The petitioner claims that it is an association of cab drivers in the premises of Mangalore International Airport. The cab drivers mainly hail from the family of displaced land owners who formed an association and they were given permission to operate cab services from the premises of Mangalore International Airport. It is stated that they are providing taxi services for Mangalore Airport passengers for the last 40 years. The families of the cab drivers are wholly dependent on the income earned from their cab. The respondents have accorded permission to the petitioner for taxi service and the same has been extended from time to time. Subsequent to upgradation of Mangalore Airport to that of International Airport, an agreement came to be entered into between petitioner- association and respondents on 01.02.2018 for operating taxi service for the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.01.2019. The 2nd respondent took a policy decision to cater to the needs of traveling passengers to introduce “Application Based Cab Aggregator Service” (for short ‘Aggregator Service’). On introduction of the said service, the respondents issued tender notification dated 18.06.2018 for issuance of licence for ‘Aggregator service’ at Mangalore International Airport. It is stated that the petitioner’s association is not application based service provider, it is not in a position to participate in the tender process. As the same would affect the rights of the petitioner’s association in providing cab service, the petitioner-Association made representation to the respondents. Since the respondents failed to consider the said representation, they filed the instant writ petition. Respondents filed their statement of objection stating that many complaints have been received from the travelers against the petitioner’s association of harassing passengers. The policy decision of respondents to introduce ‘Aggregator Service’ is for the benefit and convenience of the general public and particularly Air travelers of Mangalore International Airport. The respondents have made it clear in their statement that the introduction of ‘Aggregator Service’ would not mean that the petitioner’s cab service is being discontinued. The petitioner’s licence is not discontinued and ‘Aggregator Service’ is in addition to the petitioner’s cab service. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties to the writ petition disposed off the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent within 15 days and on receipt of the same the respondents to consider the same keeping in mind the observations made during the course of the order. Further the learned single Judge made it clear that there is no impediment for the respondents to proceed to finalize the tender notification. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge the petitioner is in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner’s association is an association of land losers who have been permitted to run cab service at Mangalore International Airport. They are providing taxi service for Mangalore Airport passengers for the last 40 years and their families are wholly dependent on the income earned from their cab. It is contended that the learned single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without examining as to whether ‘Aggregator Service’ would affect the petitioner-appellant to carry on their cab service. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and prays for allowing the writ appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have received number of complaints against the petitioner’s association of harassing the airport passengers. It is contended that for providing better service to the commuters of the Mangalore International Airport and to cater to the needs of traveling public the ‘Aggregator Service’ is introduced. The introduction of ‘Aggregator Service’ would not come in the way of cab drivers operating their cab service as their licence is continued.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous, but it is an equitable order. Moreover, the appellant in our view cannot consider itself as aggrieved since, the learned single Judge, has protected the interest of the petitioner’s association by observing that the petitioner’s agreement is in operation till 31.01.2019 and respondents shall not give any scope to terminate the licence granted to the petitioner for any short payment till the representation if any submitted by the petitioner being considered within a time frame. Moreover, the respondents also made it clear that the petitioner’s licence is not discontinued and they could also operate.
7. The petitioner-Association consists of cab drivers who claim to be displaced persons of their lands for Mangalore Airport and who are running the cab service for several years. Their cab service was recognized and the respondents have also entered into an agreement on 01.02.2018. In terms of the agreement, the licencee shall pay licence fee of Rs.4,33,600/- per month or Rs.40 per trip whichever is higher. The terms of the agreement also would make it clear that the licencee shall have no right to object as and when the Authority decides to grant additional licence for similar facility at the Airport premises where the licencee is rendering such services. The petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. If the respondents decide to introduce the ‘Aggregator Service’ for the convenience and to cater to the needs of Air passengers of Mangalore International Airport, the petitioner has no manner of right to object to the same. It is also to be noted that if the petitioner are eligible under the tender notification, it is open for them to participate and no where the right of the petitioner is restricted for participation in the tender notification. The apprehension of the petitioner is that they have to pay huge monthly minimum guarantee licence fee which would become difficult if other operators are permitted is taken care by the learned single Judge by directing the petitioner to make a representation to the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent to consider in the light of the observations made in paragraph 12(i) to (iii) of the order of the learned single Judge. Hence we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the reasoned order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms