During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed that the case did not require consideration under the Court’s curative jurisdiction. He explained, in his professional opinion, that the grounds for invoking the Court’s curative powers were absent.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday(28th Sept) concluded a curative petition filed by the Central government and the Airports Authority of India (AAI), which had been a barrier to the brownfield redevelopment of Nagpur airport by GMR Airports Limited.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed that the case did not require consideration under the Court’s curative jurisdiction. He explained, in his professional opinion, that the grounds for invoking the Court’s curative powers were absent.
This statement followed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud-led bench requesting a response from the Solicitor General in his professional capacity. Consequently, Mehta stated that the curative petition challenging the dismissal of a review petition against the Court’s 2022 judgment in this matter would not be pursued further.
“There is no ground of bias, nor can there be any bias,”
the SG emphasized.
The Bench subsequently recorded,
“We note that the curative plea is not being pressed before the Court,” thereby closing the case.
Nevertheless, SG Mehta urged the Court to clarify a point from the 2022 judgment, which had dismissed objections by the Centre and AAI for not being made parties to the case. Specifically, he raised concern over a paragraph that said:
“We are of the considered opinion that the objection regarding non-joinder raised by the appellants is bereft of any merit and the High Court has rightly rejected the same.”
Mehta pointed out that this statement could affect future litigation involving similar issues if not clarified. The Court acknowledged his concern and, in its order, provided the clarification.
“SG has submitted that this Court should clarify that in such cases, the Union and AAI are not necessary parties, as per para 51 of the impugned order. He noted that if this interpretation of the law remains, it could influence future litigation. The observation in para 51 of the judgment that AAI or the Union are not necessary parties is not an accurate reflection of the law,”
the Court recorded.
The development occurred after a bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had previously asked the Solicitor General (SG) to provide his personal opinion as a law officer on whether the case fell within the parameters established by the Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment.
During his submissions today, the SG asserted that his opinion was made in his capacity as an officer of the court and in a professional manner. He also clarified that he had not consulted the Union of India regarding this matter.
The SG further emphasized that curative petitions should not serve as disguised intra-court appeals.
In 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court ruling, which permitted GMR Airports to upgrade and operate Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport as part of the MIHAN (Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur) project.
The Central government and AAI sought to challenge this ruling through a review petition, which was subsequently rejected. They then filed a curative petition, urging the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. This plea has now been dismissed by the Court as not pressed.
The ruling was welcomed by the current government in Maharashtra.
BACKGROUND
The origins of this legal dispute trace back to a ruling by the Bombay High Court, which affirmed GMR’s right to manage the airport, a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2022. Following this, the Airports Authority of India (AAI) sought to challenge the ruling through a review petition, which was dismissed in May of the previous year.
At the core of the dispute lies the Nagpur Multimodal International Hub Airport (MIHAN) project, aimed at transforming Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport into a major hub for both air cargo and passengers. GMR initially secured the operational rights after emerging as the highest bidder.
However, concerns later surfaced regarding the revenue-sharing model, particularly in light of the civil aviation ministry’s concerns about MIHAN’s low revenue despite recording significant profits in the subsequent fiscal year and predicting strong passenger growth.
GMR attributed the profit increase to the rise in user development fees used to enhance passenger amenities. Despite this, the disagreement continued, prompting GMR to seek legal recourse for the enforcement of the contract. Before the court could resolve the issue, in March 2020, the state government, based on the Project Monitoring and Implementation Committee’s (PMIC) recommendation, chaired by the chief secretary, invalidated the contract.
Subsequently, a communication in March 2020 rescinded the award granted to GMR Airports for upgrading and operating the airport.
However, in a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in August 2021 annulled this decision by MIHAN, a joint venture between the Maharashtra Airport Development Company and the Airports Authority of India, deeming it ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unfair.’
This ruling by Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Kilor was upheld by the Supreme Court, with a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari dismissing MIHAN’s appeal in May 2022.
The Supreme Court ruled that the high court’s judgment was well-reasoned and did not warrant further interference.
A review petition filed last year was also dismissed by a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and JK Maheshwari, who stated, “We find no error in the impugned order, much less an apparent error on the face of the record, that would justify a review. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.”
