Read Time: 07 minutes

Court said that it is the prerogative of the Government to lease out airports for better management and functioning and that Courts are ill equipped to substitute its decisions.

The Karnataka High Court recently held that leasing out airports for better management is purely a policy decision of the Central Government and requires no interference from the Court and that in the present case, whereby Mangaluru Airport has been sought to be privatised, the Airports Authority of India has followed the most transparent process.

This observation came with the Court rejecting a PIL petition moved by Airports Authority Employees Union challenging the privatisation of Mangaluru International Airport.

In this view, a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed,

“It has been further held that it is well accepted principle that in complex, social and economic matters, decisions have been taken by the governmental authorities keeping in view the several factors and it is not possible for the Courts to consider competitive claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts. The Courts are ill equipped to substitute the decisions and in the present case also it is purely a policy decision of the Government of India to lease out the airports for better management and functioning. Therefore, as the petitioner-AAE Union has not been able to point out violation of statutory provision of law and the constitutional provisions, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.”

The petitioner questioned privatisation of the airport, the bidding process and the cabinet decision of July 3, 2019 accepting the AEL bid.

While dismissing the petition, the Court opined that AAI hadfollowed a transparent process in leasing out airports and has not privately negotiated the Mangaluru Airport deal.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the AAI has followed a most transparent process in leasing out the airports. The airport in question has not been leased out by way of private negotiation. The tender was issued and the successful bidder has been awarded the contract and there is no violation of any statutory provision of law in the matter.”

While dismissing the petition, the Division Bench further stated that PIL ought to be dismissed as the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the policy decision of the AAI had been challenged before the Kerala High Court as well. 

“Though the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court, in the light of the finding arrived at in paragraph 63(ii) of the order delivered by the Kerala High Court, the fact remains that the petitioner-AAE is a registered Trade Union and the same Trade Union has preferred the writ petition in respect of the policy decision for leasing out the airports. The process was common and in all fairness the petitioner should have disclosed the fact of filing of the writ petition before the Kerala High Court. The petitioner-AAE Union has suppressed the vital information that the policy decision which is the subject matter of this petition was also challenged before the Kerala High Court and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on account of suppression of facts.”

Case Name: Airport Authority Employees Union vs Union Govt and ors

Access Copy of Judgment Here