Airport Tourist And Taxi Drivers vs. Airport Director

Held

The Court held that the petitioners could not contend that no additional facility should be provided, as their agreement with the respondents clearly stated they could not object to the granting of additional licenses for similar facilities. The Court acknowledged that the introduction of aggregator services would lead to competition and potentially make it difficult for the petitioners to meet their minimum monthly guarantee fee, risking license cancellation. Therefore, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent (AAI) within 15 days, highlighting their displacement from land, 40 years of operation, and financial dependence. The AAI was directed to sympathetically consider this representation, keeping these factors in mind. The Court made it clear that the impugned tender notification would not be interfered with, and if the petitioners had submitted a bid due to the interim order, it would be considered as per tender conditions. The respondents were at liberty to proceed with finalizing the tender.

Facts

The Airport Tourist and Taxi Drivers Association, representing approximately 150 cab drivers who have been operating at Mangalore International Airport for about 40 years, filed a writ petition. Many members of the association were displaced landowners who were permitted to operate taxis. The association had a license agreement with the Airport Director for taxi services from February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019, requiring payment of a minimum sum of Rs. 4,33,600/- per month or Rs. 40/- per trip plus GST. The Airports Authority of India (AAI) issued a tender notification on June 18, 2018, for "Application Based Cab Aggregator Service" at the airport, which the petitioner sought to quash, fearing it would displace their business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned tender notification dated 18.06.2018 for "Application Based Cab Aggregator Service" at Mangalore International Airport is liable to be quashed, considering the existing license agreement with the petitioner-Association and its impact on their livelihood, as per Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The tender notification would displace their business, making it impossible to compete with aggregator services and meet their contractual payment obligations. They argued the state should act fairly and not at the cost of their livelihood, especially since the aggregator service was not contemplated when their agreement was made. They also contended there were no complaints against their services. Respondents' arguments: The AAI formulated a policy for "Application Based Cab Aggregator Service" to cater to evolving customer needs and provide efficient services. They argued the petitioners have no right to question the tender, as their agreement allows the AAI to grant additional licenses for similar facilities. They also claimed there were several complaints against existing taxi drivers and that the petitioners would not be displaced and could continue operating.