Delhi High Court (August 21, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125697 2002-DLT-98-618 :: 2001-AD (Del)-7-429 INDO CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. Airport Authority of India MUKUL MUDGAL ( 1 ) PURSUANT to a notice of May 2000 inviting tender, the petitioner was awarded a licence on 5/6/2000 (valid for" 3 years) after an advance deposit of Rs. 9,06,000. 00 (six months licence fees) and a payment of monthly licence fees of Rs. 1,51,000. 00 for the first year, Rs. 66,100. 00 for the second year and Rs. 1,82,710. 00 for the third year for running a luxury bus service from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to Amritsar and vice cersa. The petitioner s grievance arises from what is averred to be the unauthorised and unlicensed operation by respondent No. 4 whose agents solicit business by entering into the arrival lounge of the airport and entice away the petitioner s prospective customers. This has caused heavy losses to the petitioner. The entire operations of respondent No. 4 have been termed to be illegal and contrary to several regulations of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airport) Regulations 1992. The petitioner has unsuccessfully made several complaints to the respondents 1 to 3/airports Authority of India, Airports Manager and General Manager, who have not taken any action against the respondent No. 4 even though the regulations empower them to do so. The writ petition essentially seeks a mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to perform their statutory duties as well as a restraint order against respondent No. 4 from doing unlicensed and unauthorized trade or business from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. ( 2 ) THE counter affidavit has not been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 inspite of several oportunities granted on 24/1/2001, 12/3/2001 and 23/7/2001 when it was ordered that the right to file counter affidavit shall be closed if the same is not filed within the stipulated period and the matter will be heard on the existing pleadings. ( 3 ) NEITHER the counter affidavit has been filed nor any one appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 today in Court. The right to file counter affidavit already stood closed as per the order dated 23/7/2001. Accordingly the matter is finally heard with the consent of the counsel for the parties, who are appearing. ( 3 ) NEITHER the counter affidavit has been filed nor any one appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 today in Court. The right to file counter affidavit already stood closed as per the order dated 23/7/2001. Accordingly the matter is finally heard with the consent of the counsel for the parties, who are appearing. ( 4 ) THE Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 while denying any illegal operation has stated that he has filed another writ petition No. 6757 of 2000 in which an interim order on 10/11/2000 was passed which reads as follows : "10/11/2000 Present: Mr. R. K. Kapoor for the petitioner CW 6757/2000 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed and is not being permitted to carry the pre-booked passengers from the Airport to the destination. He submits that the authorities have been unauthorizedly detaining the vehicles and fining him. He relied on Annexure P 1 in support of this. Learned counsel submits that respondents under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act or any other law have no authority to impose the fine for operating the bus "unauthorizedly", as termed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner shall park its vehicles in the parking its vehicles in the parking lot designated for this purpose and for which a fee is being charged and the petitioner s vehicles would not be brought in the parking bay near the departure area so as to pick up the passengers. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 12/3/2001. CM. 10362/2000 Notice for 12/3/2001. In the meanwhile, pending notice, petitioner s vehicles shall, not be detained or fined as long as the same are parked in the authorised parking lots and are used for carrying the pre-booked passengers. " ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 4 further state he has only been picking up the pre booked passenger and parking the vehicles in the authorised parking lots after paying the prescribed parking charges and is not picking up the passengers as alleged in the petition. " ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 4 further state he has only been picking up the pre booked passenger and parking the vehicles in the authorised parking lots after paying the prescribed parking charges and is not picking up the passengers as alleged in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that in so far as the order passed by this Court on 10/11/2000 in civil writ petition No. 6757 of 2000 is concerned, he is not aggrieved by it as present provided the terms stipulated in the said order are observed. ( 6 ) SINCE respondents 1 to 3 have choosen not to appear and not filed the counter affidavit, I he averments in so far as respondents 1 to 3 are deemed to be admitted. ( 7 ) IN view of the above observation, the writ. petition is allowed qua respondents 1 to 3 and prayers (a) to (c) mentioned in the writ petition are granted. ( 8 ) AS regards prayer (d) in the writ petition is concerned, the same is granted subject to the clarification that grant of such prayer will not come in the way of respondent No. 4 operating according to the terms of this court s the order dated 10/11/2000 so long as the said Order dated 10/12/2000 stands. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. --- *** --- .