IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.3170 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. S. S. ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. BOLANATH RAJPATI SHUKLA HAVING OFFICE AT B-101 JUPITER APARTMENT POONAM SAGAR COMPLEX MIRA ROAD (E) THANE MUMBAI – 401 107. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA HEADQUARTERS RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NEW DELHI – 110 003.
2. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA MANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY AIRPORT DIRECTOR MANGALURU – 575 001.
3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA MANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MANGALURU – 575 001.
4. BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, MIRA ROAD MUMBAI. ... RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT No.4 AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 3.4.2019 (BY SRI.GANAPATI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAYAPPA Y HADAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT-2 SRI.M.MOHAMED IBRAHIM, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT-4 ) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.40419 OF 2018 [GM-RES] BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP NO.40419 OF 2018 [GM-RES] AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The appellant sought to question the order dated 29.08.2018 bearing No.AAI/ML/AD/PARKING/F25F2018 passed by the 2nd respondent – Airports Authority of India, Mangaluru International Airport, Mangaluru, by which the license agreement granted to the writ petitioner was terminated. The learned Single Judge came to the view that the Bank Guarantee which was stated to have been issued on behalf of the writ petitioner does not bear any details. That the petitioner is due to the respondent authorities a sum of Rs.42,77,000/- and when the respondents intended to invoke the Bank Guarantee to recover the dues and wrote a letter to the Bank Manager, the reply was that no such Bank Guarantee has been issued by the Bank of India, at Mira Road Branch.
Consequently, a criminal complaint was also lodged against the writ petitioner and a First Information Report was lodged. Placing this material on record, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if an opportunity is given, it would replace the Bank Guarantee by producing a demand draft during the course of this proceeding.
4. By the order dated 03.04.2019 a direction was issued to implead the Bank of India, Mira Road, Mumbai, as the 4th respondent to ascertain the veracity of the submissions made by the appellant. The 4th respondent is presently represented by Sri. M. Mohamed Ibrahim, learned counsel. He submits that the Bank Guarantee produced by the appellant as well as the communication addressed are fake. That they were not aware of the same until a notice was issued for invoking the Bank Guarantee.
5. Therefore, this is a clear case where the appellant has committed a fraud on the respondents. That they have created fake documents and communications. That they have a created fake Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,99,62,000/-. Therefore, the respondents were justified in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant. The law must necessarily take its course. The contention th`at the appellant would produce a substitute bank guarantee is unacceptable. He has committed a fraud. He has got caught. The same cannot be condoned by producing another bank guarantee. Therefore, such a plea cannot also be accepted.
6. For all these reasons and in view of the fact that when the Bank themselves have stated that the Bank Guarantee as well as the communications are fake documents prepared by the appellant, no relief could be granted to the appellant. The learned Single Judge was rather lenient to the appellant by only dismissing the writ petition. Hence we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:KHV