TRIKUTTA TRAVEL PLANNERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions had been preferred assailing the action of the respondents in disengaging the petitioners as agents which were providing Ground Handling Services [GHS] at Civil Airports regulated by the respondent. Insofar as the application in W.P.(C) 6432/2021 is concerned, modification is sought in respect of the petitioners who are providing GHS at Srinagar and Jammu airports. In W.P.(C) 10120/2021, the prayer for modification is addressed with respect to the airports at Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada. For the purposes of considering the prayer for modification, it would be pertinent to notice the following facts.

(2.) The petitioners were Ground Handling Agents which had been duly engaged by scheduled operators. The respondents in 2018 had framed appropriate regulations for enlistment and selection of Ground Handling Agents. The case of the petitioners here rests on the provisions made in Regulation 7(4) of the Airports Authority of India (Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2018 [2018 Regulations] which reads thus:-

(3.) Initially, when the writ petition was entertained, a learned Judge of the Court on 15/7/2021 had proceeded to notice the grievance raised and recorded the contention of the petitioners that the respondents had acted arbitrarily in divesting the petitioner from providing GHS contrary to the 2018 Regulations. It was contended that till such time as a ground handling agent is duly identified and takes over the operations at a particular airport, the petitioners would have a right to continue to operate. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the Court proceeded to pass an order requiring maintenance of status quo. It is that order which has continued till the present.