1 2025:CGHC:18394-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1991 of 2025 M/s Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Private Limited Through Its Managing Director, OfÏce No. 02, Basement L-322, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi 110037 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, Block B, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport Area, New Delhi 110003 2 - Airport Authority of India Represented By Its Chairman, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport Area, New Delhi 110003 3 - Executive Director (Commercial) Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi 110003 4 - Airport Director Airports Authority of India, Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur (C.G.) 492015 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Senior Advocate (through Video Conferencing), Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey and Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocates. For Respondent No. 1/Union of India : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Standing Counsel. For Respondents No. 2 to 4/Airport Authority of India : Mr. Digvijay Rai and Ms. Anmol Sharma, Standing Counsel 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner Company from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned termination order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P/1); 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents from taking any extraneous factors into account-particularly any reference to the petitioner's alleged association with debarment orders issued against M/s Saptagiri Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. while considering the Petitioner's bid for a tender. 10.4 Any other relief reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, M/s Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Company Act, 1956, in the year 1999, engaged in providing services of Food & beverages, Spa, Car Parking and other related services, at Airports run by Airports Authority of India. The respondent No.4 who is the Nodal OfÏcer, functions under the aegis of respondent No. 2 and is responsible for operation, management and maintenance of Swami Vivekananda Airport, Raipur. It had issued the Notice Inviting E-Tender (for short, the NIT) dated 27.06.2024 for license for Executive Lounge and Meet & Greet Services at Raipur Airport 3 bearing E-Tender No. 2024 AAI 1996 09 1, inviting interested parties to submit their respective proposal/bids in response to the NIT. The aforesaid NIT was published in the website of Government e- Marketplace- Central Public Procurement Portal (www.etenders.gov.in) ("E-tender Portal"). In the said NIT, the petitioner was declared as H-1 bidder and the competent authority issued Letter of Award (for short, the LoA) dated 28.08.2024 in favour of the petitioner and granted the license for Executive Lounge and Meet & Greet Services of NIT at Swami Vivekanand Airport, Raipur. Pursuant to the LoA, the petitioner entered into license agreement along with respondent No. 4 dated 02.09.2024 for a period of 5 years from 02.09.2024 to 01.09.2029 and on the same date the site was handed-over to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the issuance of LoA to the petitioner, a petition was filed by unsuccessful bidder before this Court being WPC No. 5087 of 2024, alleging that the allied company of the petitioner i.e. SRPL was debarred from participating in the tenders floated by the respondent No.2 which is in violation of Clause 9(a)(vii) and clause 10 of the NIT General Information and Guidelines. This Court, vide order dated 19.11.2024 dismissed the aforesaid petition on the ground that the debarment order was challenged before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge by M/s SRPL and the same was allowed on 08.04.2024 by the trial Court concerned against which an appeal was preferred by the Airport Authority before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar and the matter was subjudice. As the petitioner was not allowed to participate in similar tenders by AAI, Srinagar vide its communication dated 13.11.2024 having ref. no. CL- 4 110334/3/2023/259, the petitioner preferred a suit before the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Budgum, Jammu and Kashmir seeking injunction against the respondents from disqualifying and debarring the petitioner from participating in any current or future tenders on the ground that an alleged allied company of the petitioner i.e. Saptagiri Restaurants Private Limited (for short, SRPL) was debarred from participating in the tenders floated by the respondent No.2. The learned Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 granted interim relief to the petitioner and stayed the effect of the communication dated 13.11.2024. Despite the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 06.01.2025 for termination alleging non-disclosure of conflict of interest as per clause 9(a)(vii) and clause 10 of the NIT General Information and Guidelines. 5. Mr. Sanghi submits that the show cause notice was issued on the ground that an alleged allied company of the petitioner SRPL was debarred from participating in the tenders floated by the Respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.12.2023 which was duly replied by the petitioner wherein the relationship between SRPL and the petitioner Company was explained in detail. In relation to the aforesaid dispute the representatives of the petitioner also had personal meeting with the respondent authorities on 07.02.2025 wherein a request was made to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner however, till date no action has been taken by the authorities. 6. Mr. Sanghi submits that SRPL was debarred by the respondent authority vide its order dated 20.12.2023 however the same was assailed before the Additional Sessions Judge Budgam and the said Court, vide its order dated 21.12.2023 had stayed the effect and operation of the 5 banning/debarment order. The said interim order was made absolute by order dated 08.04.2024 which was assailed by the respondent AAI before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K in FAO 13 of 2024. When NIT was floated, LoA was granted in favour of the petitioner and the agreement was signed between the parties, the effect and operation of alleged banning/debarment order was stayed by the order of competent court and therefore the same cannot be a reason for cancellation of the LoA issued in favour of the petitioner. Recently, vide order dated 11.03.2025 the High Court of J&K has allowed the First Appeal preferred by respondent-AAI and admittedly there was no stay on the order passed by the ADJ Budgam therefore, the same cannot adversely affect the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Court does not affect the rights of the petitioner since the civil suit is still pending and since the Civil Suit is yet to be decided on merits, mere reversal of the order granting stay cannot take away rights of the petitioner. Whenever the petitioner participated in any tendering process related to the AAI, on one pretext or the other the petitioner was being hit with a disqualification on the ground of being allied or related with a company named M/s SRPL. A similar scenario happened when the NIT bearing Bid No. 2024 AAI @@1118 1, for the "Comprehensive License for Operating Meet & Greet facility and Trolley Advertisement Rights Cum Retrieval facility" at Srinagar International Airport was issued by respondent authority and since the petitioner was denied to participate in the said process, petitioner filed a petition being WP(C) No. 526/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 18.03.2025, granted interim relief to the petitioner and directed the respondent AAI not to proceed with the finalization of the tendering process. After the alleged debarment order 6 was passed against the alleged allied firm, the petitioner was allowed to participate and subsequently the petitioner's technical bid was accepted by the respondent authorities and no hindrance was caused because of banning of SRPL which is now treated as an allied firm of the Petitioner. The respondent authority gave no heed to the reply and without considering the specific averments made therein, impugned order of termination dated 24.03.2025 was issued on the basis of the irrelevant considerations. After issuance of the show cause notice dated 06.01.2025 the petitioner sent a letter dated 04.03.2025 to the Hon'ble Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation seeking necessary action and after termination sent a letter to the respondent authority for withdrawal of termination specifically mentioning the absence of afÏliate relationship and misinterpretation of the clauses of the agreement. 7. Mr. Sanghi submits that the respondent authorities failed to appreciate that firstly, the SRPL is not an allied/afÏliate Company of the petitioner nor a co-bidder, secondly, the debarment order was not in operation at the time of issuance of NIT or at the time of issuance of LoA in favour of the Petitioner, thirdly, the petitioner was allowed to participate in other tenders floated by the respondent AAl and was declared eligible after opening of technical bid, fourthly, similar actions of the respondent authority was assailed by the petitioner before the Competent Courts at other jurisdiction wherein the interim orders were granted in favour of the Petitioner; and lastly, the respondent authority has not received any complaint despite operation of the site for last 6 (six) months and as such, this petition deserves to be allowed as after issuance of the LoA and execution of license agreement with respondent No. 4 on 02.09.2024 for a period of 5 years from 02.09.2024 to 01.09.2029 and handing over the site to the petitioner, the petitioner has invested a huge 7 amount of nearly Rs. 5 Crores, all of a sudden the respondent authorities have terminated the licence, which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The respondent authorities have not at all disclosed as to which terms of the NIT has been breached. Even the term used ‘afÏliate’ has not been defined anywhere in the contract agreement or tender document. It is a statutory term which finds place in the Companies Act. If the respondents go by the definition provided in the Companies Act, then the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement of that definition. The petitioner has neither committed any fraud or forgery during the tender process or thereafter. The only allegation is that M/s. SRPL is debarred and the petitioner is also an afÏliate of M/s. SRPL without substantiating the said allegation. 8. Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the contesting party in this petition is the respondents No. 2 to 4. 9. Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 4, assisted by Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel, in response to the arguments advanced by Mr. Sanghi, has drawn attention of this Court to the show cause notice issued by the AAI on 06.01.2025. The show cause notice itself makes it amply clear that there is a relationship between the SRPL and the petitioner Company which has been concealed by the petitioner. There exists financial transactions and legal relationship between the SRPL and the petitioner. Even today, Vikram Singh is a shareholder of Mahesh Sunny, whereas he is the Director of SRPL. He further places reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 11390-2024 (O&M) M/s. Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India & Others, decided on 19.12.2024, wherein also, clause 9 and 10 of the NIT was 8 taken into consideration. Similarly, before the Hon’ble Madras High Court also, the legal relationship was afÏrmed and the petition filed by M/s. SRPL was dismissed, being WP Nos. 23446/2023, and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2024 and latest order passed against M/s. SRPL is the order passed by the High Court of J&K at Ladakh at Srinagar in FAO No. 13/2024, on 11.03.2025. It is lastly submitted that it is a determinable contract, the contract has been determined, there is an arbitration clause and the petitioner may invoke the said clause and it has been settled in catena of decisions including ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163, that where a procedure has been prescribed in the agreement, the parties are bound to follow it though there is no absolute bar in maintenance of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the Courts should normally refrain from entertaining the same. 10. In response, Mr. Sanghi submits that in the petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court and the J&K High Court, the petitioner was not the party to the proceedings, but it was M/s. SRPL who was the party and as such, judgments passed by those High Courts do not have any direct bearing on this case. Mr. Sanghi further submits that M/s. SRPL is in the process of filing of an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the J&K High Court and the original civil suit is pending before the learned trial Court. The reply filed by the has not been considered by the respondent authorities at all. Mr. Sanghi submits that soundness of the decision may be questioned before the competent Court of law if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. 9 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. The issue involved in this petition, in nutshell, is that the petitioner’s licence for the Combined Tender of Executive Lounge and Meet and Greet Services at S.V. Airport Raipur, has been cancelled vide order dated 24.03.2025 on the ground of violation of clause 9 and 10 of the NIT. 13. Clause 9 and 10 of the General Information & Guidelines of the NIT reads as under: “9. Fraud & Corrupt Practices and Penalty: a) Even if the bidder satisfies every criterion as per the guidelines set forth above, but at any stage during the tender process, or after the issuance of LOIA to the successful bidder, or after the execution of concession agreement or during the subsistence thereof, AAI at its discretion can disqualify the bidder or terminate the concession (as the case maybe), if the bidder/licensee : i. has been debarred by any state or central government or government agency in India and the same is subsisted at the time of NIT; or ii. has made misleading or false representation in the forms, statements and attachments submitted; or iii. the applicant does not respond promptly and thoroughly to request for supplementary information requested by AAI for the evaluation of the Proposal; or iv. One or more of the eligibility criteria on have not been met by the Applicant, or v. The Applicant has made a material misrepresentation; or vi. The Applicant has has engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, coercive, undesirable or restrictive practice; vii. The applicant or its afÏliates or a person or entity having legal relationship with applicant committed any fraud or forgery by way of submission of any kind of documents/ bank guarantee/ Security Deposit etc (during the tender process and 10 thereafter) with this or any other tender/ contract with Airports Authority of India or any PSU or Government Departments during the last 5 years; b) Then the LOIA or the draft Agreement, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein or in this NIT Document, be liable to be terminated by a communication in writing by AAI to the agency without AAl being liable in any manner whatsoever to the agency. In such an an event, AAI shall forfeit and appropriate the EMD and Performance Security and debar the agency from AAI tenders for any period not succeeding subject to minimum of three years, as the case may be without prejudice to any other right or remedy that may be available to AAI in this regard. c) If such an event occurs after the issuance of LoA and during the contract period, then AAl reserves the right to take any such measure as may be deemed fit in the sole discretion of AAI, including annulment of the contract and forfeiture of the Performance Security amount. d) Proposals shall be deemed to be under consideration immediately after they are opened until such time that AAI makes an ofÏcial intimation of award/rejection to the Applicants. While the Proposals are under consideration, Applicants and/or their representatives or other interested parties are advised to refrain from contacting, by any means, AAI and/or their employees/representatives on matters relating to the Proposals under consideration. 10. Conflict of Interest: A Bidder shall not have a conflict of interest (the "Conflict of Interest") that affects the Bidding Process. Any bidder found to have a Conflict of interest shall be disqualified. A Bidder shall be deemed to have a Conflict of Interest affecting the Bidding Process if: i. The Bidder, or its AfÏliate (or any constituent thereof) and any other Bidder or any AfÏliate thereof (or any constituents thereof) have common controlling shareholders or other ownership interest: provided that this disqualification shall not apply in cases where the direct or indirect shareholding of a bidder, its Member or an AfÏliate thereof (or any shareholder thereof) having a shareholding of more than 20% (twenty percent) of the aggregate issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of such Bidder, member or AfÏliate, (as the cases may be) in the other Bidder, its Member or an AfÏliate is less than 20% (twenty percent) of the aggregate issued, subscribed and paid up equity share capital thereof; provided further that this disqualification shall not apply to any ownership by the Authority, a bank, insurance company, pension fund or a public financial Institution referred to in Section 2(72) of the Companies Act, 2013; 11 For the purposes of this Clause, indirect shareholding held through 1 (one) or more Intermediate persons shall be computed as follows: (A) Where any intermediary is controlled by a person through management control or otherwise, the entire shareholding held by by such controlled intermediary in any other person (the "Subject Person") shall be taken into account for computing the shareholding of such controlling person in the Subject person; and (B) Subject always to sub-clause (A) above, where a person does not exercise control over an intermediary, which has shareholding in the Subject Person, the computation of indirect shareholding of such person in the Subject person shall be undertaken on a proportionate basis; provided, however, that no such shareholding shall be reckoned under this sub-clause if the shareholding of such person in the intermediary is less that 26% (twenty six percent) of the aggregate issued, subscribed and paid up equity shareholding of such intermediary; or ii. a Bidder/Nominated entity has nominated the same Nominated entity or nominated Personnel as another Bidder; or iii. a constituent of such Bidder is also a constituent of another Bidder; or iv. such Bidder or AfÏliate thereof receives, has received, or has entered into an agreement to receive, any direct or indirect subsidy, grant, concessional loan, or subordinated debt from any other Bidder, or any AfÏliate thereof or has provided or has entered into an agreement to provide any such subside, grant, concessional loan or subordinated debt to any other Bidder, its Member or any AfÏliate thereof; or v. such Bidder has the same legal representative for purposes of a Bid as any other Bidder; or vi. such Bidder or any AfÏliate thereof, has a relationship with another Bidder or any AfÏliate thereof, directly or indirectly or through a common third party/parties, that puts either or both of them in a position to have access to each other's information, or to influence the Bid of either or each other, or such Bidder or any AfÏliate thereof, has participated as a consultant to the Authority in the preparation of any documents, design or technical specifications of the Project. Explanation: In case a Bidder is a Consortium, then the term Bidder as used in this Clause shall include each Member of such Consortium and the term AfÏliate with respect to a Bidder shall include an AfÏliate of each Member of that Consortium. 12 Note: Regarding conflict of interest, AAI shall place reliance upon the declaration to be submitted by the bidder/applicant in the form of acceptance of AAI's tender conditions/other documents forming part of technical bids. In the event, the declaration submitted by the bidder/ applicant towards there being no conflict of interest, is found incorrect/false, such incorrect declaration would be treated as submission of false/incorrect document and it would amount to material misrepresentation made by the bidder/applicant. In such event, punitive actions shall be taken by AAI as per provision of tender documents/license agreement.” 14. The show cause notice dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) is clear and unambiguous and the same clearly states that the petitioner has failed to disclose the inter-party relationship between the entiies. The relevant portion of the said notice reads as under: “... This is with reference to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2025 and your reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 10.02.2025, which was addressed to the Chairman, AAl You were issued Show Cause Notice to seek explanation as to why the Combined Tender for Executive Lounge and Meet and Greet Services should not be terminated as well as other actions including debarring, forfeiture of EMD and/or security deposit for violation of clause 9 and clause 10 of NIT should not be taken against you. It was found out that you had failed to disclose by omission your inter-party relationship with M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited and M/s Syona Spa, which was critical for determining Conflict of Interest as per clause 10 of NIT. Further, M/s Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited-your afÏliate entity has been debarred having been found guilty of collusive bidding and was debarred by AAl on 20.12.2023. That makes you further liable for termination under clause 9 of the NIT. You had failed to disclose the following inter-party relationship 13 between entities: A. SRPL vis-à-vis Mahesh Sunny: a) Bikram Singh was a common director of SRPL as well as Mahesh Sunny at a certain point of time. b) Satvik Gothwal, present director of Mahesh Sunny, is a Key Managerial Personnel of both SRPL as well as Mahesh Sunny c) The financial statements of SRPL as well as Mahesh Sunny clearly reveal that they are related parties of each other d) SRPL has extended short term unsecured loans to Mahesh Sunny as well as Satvik Gothwal, director and key managerial personnel of Mahesh Sunny e) Mahesh Sunny has extended short term unsecured loans to SRPL B. SRPLvis a vis Kian: a) Kian is a sole proprietorship firm with the sole proprietor being Satvik Gothwal Therefore, for legal purposes, Kian and Satvik Gothwal are one and the same b) Satvik Gothwal is a Key Managerial Personnel of SRPL c) SRPL has extended short term unsecured loans to Satvik Gothwal d) Sathvik Gothwal is a related party of SRPL. C. Syona visa vis Mahesh Sunny: a) Syona is a sole proprietorship firm with the sole proprietor being Karan Singh. Therefore, for all legal purposes, Syona and Karan Singh are one and the same. b) Syona received short term unsecured loans from Mahesh Sunny. (Reference point A above) c) Karan Singh is an employee of SRPL which has intricate relationships with Mahesh Sunny as he was employed with M/s SRPL during 2015-2022 and had received financial aid in the 14 form of loan from M/s SRPL. Karan Singh had also admitted to work with M/s Mahesh Sunny prior to 2014. Karan Singh was running Syona spa even during his employment with M/s SRPL d) Syona is admittedly a related party of Mahesh Sunny. D. Syona vis a vis Kian: a) Both Karan Singh as well as Satvik Gothwal, who are owners of Syona and Kian, respectively, have received unsecured short-term loans from Mahesh Sunny b) Both Kian and Syona have received unsecured short-term loans from Mahesh Sunny. c) Kian which is owned by Satvik Gothwal is key managerial personnel of SRPL whose employee Karan Singh, owns Syona. d) Satvik Gothwal, the owner of Kian is a director and Key Managerial Personnel of Mahesh Sunny, which is a related party of Syona. Furthermore, Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Laddakh vide judgment dated 11.03.2025 in FAO No. 13/2024 has set aside the impugned orders dated 21.12.2023 and 08.04 2024 which had stayed the AAl's debarment order dated 20.12.2023. The said debarment order dated 20.12.2023 therefore is applicable all over India from the said date. Therefore, for all these reasons, AAI S.V Airport, Raipur has decided to terminate your License for Combined Tender of Executive Lounge and Meet and Greet Services issued to you vide this ofÏce Award letter dated 28.08 2024 with immediate effect. Any further action pursuance to this decision to terminate the license will follow in due course. This is issued without prejudice to the rights to take legal action as deemed appropriate.” 15. In response to the above, the petitioner has filed its reply (Annexure P/8) the relevant portion of which reads as under: 15 “... This has reference to the meeting dated 07-02 2025, held in your ofÏce when Member (HR), AAI and Executive Director (Comml.). AAl were also present In line of our request to look in to our grievance, we are submitting this representation for the sympathetic consideration towards withdrawing the above Show Cause Notices and also to issue necessary instructions to all the airports, wherever, we have participated, not to reject our bids on the alleged ground of our being an allied company/related party of M/S Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. and in this regard our submissions are as under: 1. M/S Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd is operated by two directors namely Sh Mohandr Singh and the undersigned. Satvik Gothwal. 2. That the undersigned is also the sole proprietor of M/S Hotel Kian. 3. Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd has never participated in any of the bidding process simultaneously till today, wherever M/S Saptagiri Restaurant PVL Ltd. or M/S Syona Spa or M/S Hotel Kian have participated. 4. Neither, we M/S Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd nor Hotel Kian are allied or afÏliate to either Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. or Svona Spa nor we have any shareholding in Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt Ltd. 5. However, Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. does have a shareholding at 8.04% and 8.68% through their directors Mr. Bikram Singh and Mr Dhruv Gothwal, respectively and the same is already on record and this does not create any common control or conflict of interest. 6. The shares held by Mr. Bikram Singh and Mr. Daruv Gothwal are below 20% which is not the controlling shares It is further, submitted that none of any other person or entity or a company does have any shareholding in Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 7. We do not have any intermediary which could control the affairs of our company nor we are in a position to control the affairs of any other entity, person or a company 8. We are not a nominated entity /badder to any other ladder in any of the bidding process and so far, we are bidding in the name of our own company/the sole proprietorship of the under signed i.e. Hotel Kian. 9. None of our legal representatives is a legal representative in any 16 of the bidding process of am other bidder nor we have ever taken any concessional loan from any co bidder. 10. M/S Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt Ltd was debarred by Chennai and Amritsar Airport on the ground of collusion with a third proprietorship firm, namely Syona Spa on 26.07.2023 and 08.08.2023 respectively. Subsequently Airports Authority of India debarred Saptagiri Restaurant Private Limited on Pan India basis side then debarment order dated 20.12.2023. 11. The said debarment order dated 20-12-2023, when challenged before the court of Additional District Judge, Budgam, Srinagar the same was stayed by the court on 21 12-2023 and was made absolute on 8th April 2024 The case is still pending and this fact we came to know from order dated 19-11-2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CWP No. 5087of 2034. 12. The said petition No. 5087 of 2024 was filed by H2 bidder with prayer to the Hon'ble Court to terminate our contract as awarded by Raipur Airport for operating Executive Lounge and Meet & Greet facility on the premise that we are an allied company of M/25 Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. and M/S Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd has been debarred by AAl vide order dated 20-12-2023. 13. The sand petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on the afÏdavit of All firming that we have been awarded the contract by Raipur Airport as the debarment order dated 20-12-2013 against Saptagni Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. has been staved by the court and made absolute on 08 04-2024 and the matter is subjudice. 14 It is further submitted that while submitting our bids at Raipur and Chennai Airports all disclosures were made, no false information or concealment of material facts occurred and the show cause notices as mentioned above are inconsistent with the clear terms of the NIT. 15. It is further submitted that our company/firm participated in the bidding process in good faith, adhering to the principles of transparency, integrity, and compliance with the NIT The allegations in the Show Cause Notices are speculative and lack evidentiary support, and accordingly, we requested Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court to examine our grievance in the light of allegations raised upon us by the Raipur and Chennai Airport in terms of clause 9 and Clause 10 of the NIT relating with Fraud & Corrupt practices and Penalty and Conflict of Interest respectively. 16. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court and Sr. Advocate after examining the relevant clauses as mentioned above has delivered his opinion, opining that a perusal 17 of which indicate that the allegation being leveled against us appear to be on untrue premises and we are neither a related party nor an allied company or a firm of M/S Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. In view of the forgoing, we respectfully submit that the above Show Cause Notices may please be revisited and withdrawn. For any further clarification, you may please feel free to ask us apart from giving an audience to explain the above position in person.” 16. Clause 29 of the ‘General Terms and Conditions’ of the agreement entered into between the parties on 02.09.2024(Annexure P/4) reads as under: “(29) Dispute Resolution Clause. All disputes or differences which may arise out of or in connection with or incidental to the agreement(s) including any dispute or difference regarding the interpretation of terms and conditions of any clause(s) thereof shall be dealt with as provided hereinafter I) Through Mediation: All dispute(s), at the first instance, shall be referred to the Mediation Committee of Independent Experts (MCIE) or individual mediator for mediation as per AAI Mediation Policy and Applicable laws. All cost of Mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. a) In case either party withdraws from the Mediation or the dispute(s) is not resolved within 120 days of reference to the Mediation, then the aggrieved party may invoke arbitration through sub para (ii) within 30 days from the date of receipt of Partial Settlement Agreement or Failure Report. b) Unless the contract has already been repudiated or terminated, the parties shall, in every case, continue to proceed to perform their respective obligations under the agreement. II) Adjudication through Arbitration: In case no final settlement has been arrived at between the parties after mediation or partially settled as per sub para (1) above, the unresolved dispute(s), on invocation by the aggrieved party shall be referred for adjudication 18 by arbitration. (i) When the amount involved is above 25 crores, adjudication shall be made by Arbitral Tribunal comprising of 03 arbitrators. Each party to appoint one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the Presiding Arbitrator. (ii) When the amount involved is Rs. 25 crores and below shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Chairman/Member, AAl after obtaining consent of the other party, as per format annexed at Annexure A. (iii) In both the above cases, the licensee shall have to deposit 50% of the disputed amount (in the form of BG (Additional Bank Guarantee with validity of minimum two years from the date of making such reference, and further extendable)/DD/ PO/RTGS/NEFT) with AAI as condition precedent before making reference to the Arbitration for adjudication of dispute. (iv) Unless the contract has already been repudiated or terminated, the parties shall, in every case, continue to proceed to perform their respective obligation under the the agreement. (v) Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 a amended from time to time. (vi) Fee payable to the Arbitrator(s) shall be as per Schedule-IV of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall be borne by both the parties equally. (vii) No dispute shall be referred for resolution under this clause through arbitration in matters for which eviction & recovery procedure is provided under chapter-V A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. (viii) The venue of such arbitration shall be RHQ, ER and the language of arbitration proceedings shall be English. (ix) The arbitrator shall make an award (the Award) for each dispute and/or claim and shall give reason for the award. Any award made in any arbitration held pursuant to this Article 22 19 shall be final and binding on the parties. For avoidance of doubt, the parties hereto agree that the adjudication hereunder shall not be final and binding until an appeal against such adjudication has been decided by an appellate tribunal or judicial court, as the case may be, or no such appeal has been preferred within the time specified in the Applicable Law (x) The concessionaire and the Authority agree that an Award may be enforced against the Concessionaire and/or the Authority, as the case may be, and their respective assets wherever situated. (xi) This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties shall remain in full force and effect, pending the award in any arbitration proceedings hereunder. For the avoidance of doubt, the Concessionaire hereto agree that the Concessionaire shall pay to the Authority, the Concession Fee, the Space Rent, Common Area Maintenance Charges, Utility Charges and Taxes and any other payments that may become due and payable, pending the Award in any arbitration proceedings hereunder. (xii) The parties agree to use their best efforts for resolving all Disputes arising under or in respect of this Agreement promptly, equitably and in good faith, and further agree to provide each other with reasonable access during normal business hours to all non-privileged records, information and data pertaining to any dispute.” 17. Whether M/s. SRPL is an allied Company of the petitioner or not can be ascertained by the authorities inviting tender i.e. the AAI. This Court cannot go into the niceties as to whether there was any relationship between the two Companies. Even as per the petitioner himself, Satvik Gothwal is the major share holder of the petitioner Company and he is the son of Mr. Bikram Singh and Mr. Bikram Singh is also the Director of M/s. SRPL. Mr. Bikram Singh also holds 8.04% shares in petitioner Company and 98.98% shares in M/s. SRPL. Hence, it cannot be ruled 20 out that there is no nexus between these two Companies. The terms and conditions of the NIT can be understood and interpreted, and further its violation can be understood best by the authority issuing the NIT and the Court has to see as to whether due process of law was followed or not before passing the impugned termination of licence granted to the petitioner. 18. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued show cause notice which was duly replied and only after considering the reply of the petitioner, the impugned action was taken by the respondents-AAI. Petitions were also filed by M/s. SRPL before different High Courts namely the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court and as aforesaid wherein also, the said Company did not succeed, and further, in the petition filed by the respondent-AAI before the J&K High Court also, the order of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Budgum, Jammu and Kashmir has been set aside and the petition has been allowed in favour of the AAI. These judgments confirms debarment of M/s. SRPL. 19. Even otherwise, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of invoking arbitration clause as aforesaid, which the petitioner has not taken recourse to. We do not find any merit in this petition and as such, the same is dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.25 12:18:53 +0530