Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
J.P. Construction Private Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 February, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P. No.2224 (W) of 2011
J.P. Construction Private Limited & Anr.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr Arunava Ghosh, Mr Supriya Ranjan Saha, advocates, for the petitioners. Mr Sanatan Panja,
advocate, for the Union of India. Mr P.S. Sengupta, Mr K. Chowdhury and Mr Vivek
Jhunjhunwala, advocates, for the third respondent. Mr Rishad Medora, advocate, for the twelfth
respondent. Mr Ranjan Bhachawat, Mr Rudraman Bhattacharyya and Mr Pratik Ghosh, advocates, for the thirteenth and fourteenth respondents.
Heard on: February 15, 2011.
Judgment on: February 15, 2011.
The Court: - The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated January 25, 2011 are seeking the following principal relief:
"a) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and their men, agents, and servants to quash, and/or set aside the impugned tender/Licence issued to the respondent No.17 a Joint Venture Consortium formed by the respondent no.15 and 16 on 9th September, 2009 which culminated from the circulars being AIC No.7/2007 dated 28th September, 2007, AIC 3/2010 dated 2nd June, 2010, AIC No. 15/2008 dated 31st December, 2008, AIC No.6/2009 dated 30th June, 2009, AIC No.13/2009 dated 31st December, 2009 the Impugned Regulations being passed by the Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 forthwith."
The licence dated September 9, 2009 (at p.245) was issued to a joint venture consortium that had emerged as the successful bidder in the tender process initiated by the Airports Authority of India from its office in New Delhi for "Award of License for providing Comprehensive Ground Handling Services to various domestic & International Airlines at Chennai & Kolkata Airports."
The petitioners claim that they have been providing ground handling services to various airlines in Kolkata Airport. In para.31 they have stated that they did not participate in the tender process, because they did not possess the requisite qualifications.
The licence was issued by the Executive Director (Commercial) of the Airports Authority of India from his office in New Delhi and he forwarded a copy thereof to the Airport Director, Kolkata for information and doing "the receipt in terms of the award."
The first four respondents against whom the petitioners are seeking the principal and consequential reliefs are (1) the Union of India, (2) the Director- General of Civil Aviation, (3) the Airports Authority of India and (4) the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security; and they all have their respective seats outside the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction under art.226.
As to the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners have stated their case in para.37, which is quoted below:
"37. That it is submitted that the present writ petition is within the territorial justification of this Hon'ble Court since the impugned tender/Licence have been issued in New Delhi and has affected the petitioner operating in Calcutta and other Airports. The petitioners have received/became aware of the Impugned Circulars and the tender document and licence in Calcutta. Part of the effect of the impugned Circulars/Regulations is in Calcutta and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are the principal respondents are located in Calcutta and also in New Delhi."
Mr Sengupta appearing for the Airports Authority of India has taken the preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He has relied on my decisions dated July 16 & 20, 2009 in W.P. No. 7030(W) of 2007 (Heiza Boilers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.); December 14, 2010 in W.P. No. 1550 of 2010 (Agri Trade India Services Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.); and January 19, 2011 in W.P. No. 22106 (W) of 2010 (SRRAK-REIPL JV & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.).
Mr Panja appearing for the Union of India has adopted Mr Sengupta's argument. Mr Medora appearing for Inter Glove Aviation Limited, the twelfth respondent, also adopting Mr Sengupta's argument has added that the Delhi High Court before which selection of the successful tenderer was questioned has concluded hearing of the case and reserved its judgment.
Relying on the decisions in Eastern India Edible Oil Manufacturers' Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2004(4) CHN 121 and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 2321, Mr Ghosh appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners alleging that in violation of the terms and conditions of the tender notice an ineligible company was selected and affected by the licence in Kolkata, are entitled to move this Court.
The question is whether the petitioners claiming that they are affected by the licence in Kolkata are entitled to move this Court under art.226 challenging the selection of the successful bidder.
The petitioners are actually aggrieved by the selection of the bidder in whose favour the licence has been granted. Hence their cause of action, if any, is in the selection of the bidder. Admittedly, the selection took place in New Delhi outside the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction under art.226.
If because of the enforcement of the licence by the authorities of the Kolkata Airport the petitioners lose their job, they may have an independent cause of action. But I am unable to see how such an apprehended action can be considered a part of the cause of action that is in the selection of the successful bidder by the Airports Authority of India in New Delhi in a tender process initiated there.
On the grounds that the grant of the licence has affected them in Kolkata in the sense that enforcement thereof will rob them of their job they have been executing in Kolkata, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action has arisen in Kolkata. Enforcement of the licence by permitting the bidder to give the services under the licence, is not an integral part of the tender process that ended with the grant of licence to the successful bidder.
Automatic consequences of the licence suffered by the petitioners in Kolkata cannot form a part of their cause of action on which this petition has been brought, for questioning the validity of the tender process they are not required to plead and prove that the licence has affected them in Kolkata. The principles stated in the decisions relied on by Mr Sengupta fully support his contention.
In my opinion, no principle stated in the decisions relied on by Mr Ghosh can lead to a conclusion in this case that as the petitioners are claiming that the licence has affected them in Kolkata a part of their cause of action in the selection of the successful bidder in the tender process and grant of licence in its favour in New Delhi, has arisen in Kolkata entitling them to bring this petition before this Court on the basis of the cause of action.
For these reasons, I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)