R PONNUSAMY Vs. SENIOR AERODROME OFFICER CIVIL AERODROME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms.Innisai, learned counsel for Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a direction to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the rights of the petitioners to ply taxies on the basis of car rental service (Prepaid System) at the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu.

(3.) THE second respondent has filed a counter. It is stated therein that the second respondent Association, namely, Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi, Taxi Owners and Drivers Association is registered under Societies Registration Act in Registration No.72/91 on 22.04.1991 by the Registrar of Societies, Coimbatore. However, it is true that the petitioners issued a lawyer's notice dated 10.06.2006 to the second respondent for which the second respondent replied to the petitioners stating that the petitioners already sold their permits of taxies to third parties and also relinquished their rights to continue as members in the association and to ply taxies in the Aerodrome. Hence, the petitioners are not members and they do not have any right whatsoever on account of surrendering their rights to ply the taxies. 5a. THE second respondent would also state that an agreement dated 24.10.1990 was entered into among the 2nd respondent Association, Coimbatore District Taxi Owners Association and the Aerodrome Authority. Only the members of the said two associations were permitted to ply taxies in and around Aerodrome and non-members were not permitted. Since the petitioners sold their rights to third parties and ceased to be the members of the said Association, they do not have any right to ply taxies. It was also pointed out that among the 40 members, 26 members are members of the 2nd respondent Association and the remaining 14 are members of the Coimbatore District Taxi Owners Association and thus, only the members of the said two Associations were alone permitted to ply taxies. All the past members of the said two Associations are the members of the present association, who are totalling 40 in number. THErefore, the claim of the petitioners is denied. 5b. It is the specific stand of the second respondent that the petitioners relinquished their rights as members of the Association in various spells and they have surrendered their rights to third parties so as to enable the third parties to become the members of the Association. While so, by suppressing all the material facts, the writ petitioners preferred this writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents in any manner to interfere with their rights. 5c. In the counter, it is submitted that the Airports Authority of India floated tender to ply taxies on the basis of Car Rental Service (Pre-paid System) at the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu, Coimbatore by calling for tender bid from various parties. THE second respondent Association was the successful tenderer and initially, the tender was for a period of one year and thereafter, a fresh tender was called for, for a period of five years during the year 2004. Once again, the second respondent Association turned out to be the successful bidder and tender was awarded in their favour to ply taxies on the basis of Car Rental Service (Pre-paid System) in and out Civil Aerodrome, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. 5d. THE second respondent would contend that again during the month of September 2009, the second respondent Association turned out to be the successful bidder and they were awarded the contract to ply taxies in and out of Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu Airport for a period of five years from 2009 to 2014 and a contract agreement was entered into between the Association and AAI, represented by the Airport Director in this regard. Thus, the second respondent is plying taxies on the basis of being the successful tenderer and the disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. THErefore, the writ petition is to be dismissed in limine. That apart, in view of the change of circumstances, by virtue of floating a new tender by the Airport Director during the year 2009, subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, the same has given rise to a fresh cause of action, rendering the writ petition infructuous, apart from the legal position that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the writ petition seeking such a relief. Moreover, AAI, represented by the Airport Director was not impleaded in the writ petition, who is the appropriate authority and on the other hand, Senior Aerodrome Officer was made as a party respondent. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.