Today(27th August), The Supreme Court sought Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s input on the Centre and AAI’s curative plea challenging its previous verdict favoring GMR Airports for upgrading and operating Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport. The plea responds to a May 2022 decision that upheld a Bombay High Court ruling invalidating a contract cancellation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(27th August), the Supreme Court of India sought the input of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on the Centre and the Airports Authority of India’s (AAI) curative plea challenging a previous verdict that favored GMR Airports in the matter of upgrading and operating Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.
The curative plea is a response to the Supreme Court’s May 9, 2022, decision, which upheld a Bombay High Court order that quashed a March 2020 communication. This communication, issued by a joint venture firm, had annulled the contract awarded to GMR Airports for the airport’s upgradation and operation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 had significant implications, with the court asserting that the Bombay High Court’s decision was “based on sound reasoning and true analysis of facts,” and therefore did “not warrant interference.” The Centre and the AAI, disagreeing with this conclusion, have now filed a curative plea, hoping to overturn the ruling.
During the hearing, a special four-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and JK Maheshwari, acknowledged the significance of the case, especially considering the financial implications involved.
“This is a significant issue with substantial financial implications.”
-remarked the Chief Justice.
He further urged Solicitor General Mehta to provide his “dispassionate” views on the issue, not just as a law officer representing the Centre, but as an officer of the court.
The bench also highlighted the need to maintain a balance of equity, given the competing interests of the State and the private firm involved. The Solicitor General agreed to assist the court and requested that the matter be listed for further hearing on Friday, a request the court granted.
Earlier, the special bench had instructed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to submit all relevant file notings related to the tender process for the airport. This move was in line with the court’s effort to ensure transparency and fairness in the proceedings.
ALSO READ: SC Upholds Delhi HC Order on Rs.17 Crore Service Tax Demand Against PVR INOX
In 2022, the Supreme Court, while upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision, had emphasized the importance of adhering to fairness, equality, and the rule of law in contracts granted by government bodies.
The court stated-
“Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to equality and rejects arbitrariness. The court supports a transparent bidding process to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.”
The bench, in its ruling, further elaborated-
“It is stated that the constitutional guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner, except when public interest dictates otherwise.”
The court also noted that any compromise of private legitimate interest must be proportionate to the public interest.
The Supreme Court’s judgment stemmed from an appeal filed by MIHAN (Multi Modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur), the flagship project of the Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited. The appeal challenged the Bombay High Court’s August 18, 2021, order, which had quashed a communication issued to GMR Airports by MIHAN, annulling the bidding process for the airport’s upgradation and modernization.
The High Court had criticized MIHAN’s actions as “arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable,” stating that the impugned communication “deserves to be quashed and set aside.” The court found that the bidding process had already concluded, with GMR Airports being awarded the project through a Letter of Award on March 7, 2019.
The Centre has contended that it was not adequately heard by the High Court, a claim that forms part of the basis for the curative plea.
The Supreme Court had earlier stressed that government contracts must uphold fairness and equality, reiterating-
“It is specified that citing public interest or potential loss to the treasury cannot reverse the work already completed by the authority.”
GMR Airports, on its part, challenged MIHAN’s action in annulling the bidding process, arguing that the decision was unjustified given that the contract had already been awarded. MIHAN, however, maintained that the March 7, 2019 communication was merely a bid acceptance letter, contingent upon approval from the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation, rather than a final Letter of Award.
