MANNE VENKATA LAKSHMOJI, REP. BY ITS PROP. M.V. LAKSHMOJI Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMMERCIAL)
LAWS(APH)-2018-10-18
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 25,2018

Manne Venkata Lakshmoji, Rep. By Its Prop. M.V. Lakshmoji Appellant
VERSUS
Airport Authority Of India, Rep. By Its Executive Director (Commercial) Respondents




JUDGEMENT

S.V.BHATT,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu for appellant and Mr. Vikram, learned Standing counsel for 1st respondent.
(2.)Writ petitioner is the appellant. The appellant challenges order dated 22.10.2018 in W.P.No.37244 of 2018 in holding that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Clause 4.15.1 of Tender No.AAI/BZ/COMML/CAR PARKING/18-19 confining jurisdiction only on the Courts at Delhi. The operative portion of the order under appeal reads thus;
"At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that, as per the request of empanelment (RFE) of agencies for vehicle parking management services at AAI managed Airports, i.e. condition No.4.15.1, the Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction over all the disputes arising under, pursuant to and/or in connection with the process. The said clause reads as under :

"4.15.1: The empanelment process shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of India and only the Courts at Delhi shall have jurisdiction over all the disputes arising under, pursuant to and/or in connection with the process."

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain Writ Petition, despite the above clause. Having applied for empanelment in terms of the above RFE the said contention cannot be sustained.

In view of the above clause, and since the petitioner herein already made a request for his empanelment, in terms of the same, this Court is inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. However, it is open for the petitioner herein to file appropriate Writ Petition as per condition No.4.15.1."

(3.)Mr. Anjaneyulu contends that the finding recorded by the order under appeal is unsustainable and against Article 226 (2) of Constitution of India. Firstly, in the case on hand, the tender is invited to empanel operators for Airports under the administrative control of respondent No.1, secondly that, by operation of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction to consider the grievance of appellant on merits and for challenging the communication dated 01.08.2018, the appellant need invoke the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi. Further, he argues that the dismissal of writ petition just by referring to Clause 4.15.1 is erroneous, for a writ petition in this Court is maintainable even if a small portion of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Appellant relies on Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others (2014) 9 SCC 329 .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.