The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the views of the Solicitor General on issues related to a curative plea filed by the Centre and the Airports Authority of India (AAI) against its verdict allowing private firm GMR Airports to upgrade and operate Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.
The top court had, on May 9, 2022, upheld the Bombay High Court order that quashed a March 2020 communication issued by a joint venture firm, cancelling a contract awarded to GMR Airports for the upgradation and operation of the airport.
The Centre and the AAI have filed a curative plea against the 2022 order of the top court.
A special four-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and J.K. Maheshwari took up the curative plea for hearing in an open court.
“This is an important matter with significant financial stakes,” the CJI said and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to provide his “dispassionate” views not as a law officer of the Centre, but as an officer of the court.
The bench noted that since it was considering the curative petition, it needed to balance the equity, given the competing interests of the State and the private firm.
The Solicitor General agreed to assist the bench and requested the matter be listed for Friday. The court granted Mehta’s request.
Earlier, the special bench had directed the Civil Aviation Ministry to submit the file notings related to the tender process for the airport.
In 2022, the top court, while upholding the High Court’s order quashing the March 2020 communication issued by the joint venture firm MIHAN India Ltd (Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur), which cancelled the award of the contract to GMR Airports, stated that the impugned judgment was based on sound reasoning and true analysis of facts, and did not warrant interference.
“We are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the High Court allowing the writ petition are in accordance with the law. Those findings do not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this court in the exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. All these appeals are hereby dismissed,” said a bench of Justices Vineet Saran (since retired) and J.K. Maheshwari on May 9, 2022.
The Centre has alleged that it was not heard by the High Court.
The top court emphasized that contracts granted by government bodies are expected to uphold fairness, equality, and the rule of law.
“Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution abhors arbitrariness. The court favors a transparent bidding process to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied.
“It is said that the constitutional guarantee provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise,” the bench stated.
The apex court noted that any compromise of private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest.
“It is specified that using the ground of public interest or loss to the treasury cannot undo the work already undertaken by the authority,” it added.
The top court’s judgment came in response to an appeal filed by MIHAN, the flagship project of Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, challenging the August 18, 2021 order of the High Court.
The High Court had ruled that the communication issued to GMR Airports Ltd by MIHAN India Ltd deserved to be quashed and set aside.
“We find that the impugned communication is arbitrary, unfair, and unreasonable, and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside,” the High Court had said.
The HC order was in response to a petition filed by GMR Airports challenging MIHAN’s action in annulling the bidding process for the upgradation, modernization, operation, and management of the Nagpur international airport, despite the process having been completed and the project already awarded to the petitioner (GMR) by way of a Letter of Award on March 7, 2019.
According to the plea, MIHAN was planning to issue fresh tenders for the project.
MIHAN had, however, claimed that the communication sent to the petitioner on March 7, 2019, was only a bid acceptance letter and not a letter of award.
The company maintained that the communication clearly stated that the acceptance of the bid was conditional and required the approval of the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation.