Supreme Court Seeks Solicitor General's Views On Centre's Curative Plea Against GMR Airports' Contract For Nagpur Airport Upgrade

The Apex court had on May 9, 2022 upheld the Bombay High Court order which 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 the curative plea against the 2022 order of the Apex court.

A special four-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai and Justice JK Maheshwari took up the curative plea in an open court for hearing.

“This is an important matter having large financial stakes,” the CJI said and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to give his “dispassionate” views not as a law officer of the Centre but as an officer of the court.

The bench said since it was taking up the curative petition, it has to keep in mind the balance of equity as there are competing interests of the State and the private firm.

The solicitor general agreed to assist the bench and urged it to list the matter for Friday. The court granted Mehta's request.

Earlier, the special bench had directed the civil aviation ministry to submit the file notings pertaining to the tender process for the airport.

In 2022, the Apex court, while upholding the high court’s order which quashed the March 2020 communication issued by the joint venture firm, MIHAN India Ltd (Multi Modal international Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur), cancelling the award of contract to GMR Airports, had said the impugned judgment was based on sound reasonings 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 law. Those findings do not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this court in exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. All these appeals are hereby dismissed," a bench of Justices Vineet Saran, since retired, and J K Maheshwari had said on May 9, 2022.

The centre has been alleging that it was not heard by the high court.

The Apex court had said contracts, if granted by government bodies, are expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law.

"Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is favoured by the court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied.

"It is said that the constitutional guarantee as 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 had said.

The apex court had said it is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest.

"It is specified that using a ground of public interest or loss to the treasury cannot undo the work already undertaken by the authority," it had said.

The Apex court's judgement came on 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 said 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 came on a petition filed by GMR Airports challenging the action of MIHAN in annulling the bidding process for upgradation, modernisation, operation and management of the Nagpur international airport despite the process having come to an end and the petitioner (GMR) already having been awarded the project 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 the communication sent to the petitioner on March 7, 2019 was only a bid acceptance letter and not a letter of award.

The company said the communication clearly stated that the acceptance of the bid was conditional and required the approval of the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation.