SC dismisses curative pleas of Centre, AAI Decks set for GMR to manage Nagpur airport

 

 

The Supreme Court, on Friday, closed the curative petitions of the Central Government and the Airport Authority of India (AAI), clearing the decks for GMR Airports to upgrade and operate Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport at Nagpur. Devendra Fadnavis, Deputy Chief Minister, expressed happiness over the development and said that this would power the ‘real take-off’ of the ambitious Multimodal International Hub and Airport at Nagpur (MIHAN) project. A special four-judge bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and J K Maheshwari closed the proceedings on the curative petitions against its verdict. The Supreme Court took note of the opinion of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the petition of the Central Government and the AAI did not fall under one of the legal parameters prescribed for entertaining such pleas. Central Government and AAI had filed curative petitions against the dismissal of their review plea by the top court. Reacting to the development, Fadnavis tweeted that he was ‘extremely happy’ that the Supreme Court had cleared the way for construction of world-class International brownfield airport at Nagpur. “It was my dream and had worked hard for the same. This will power the real take-off of MIHAN,” he posted on ‘X’.

 

He had undertaken the new airport project during his tenure as Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 2014 to 2019. The proposed new airport will have two runways. GMR had emerged as the highest bidder in the tender process conducted by MIHAN India Ltd (MIL) in 2019 for Nagpur airport. In March 2019, a Letter of Award (LoA) also was issued. MIL had shortlisted GMR for development, operations and management of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport at Nagpur. The award was at a revenue share of 14.49 per cent of gross revenues. MIL had claimed that initially GMR had offered only 5.76 per cent revenue share to MIL while the private firm was to retain 94.24 per cent revenue. Since the MIL and project management consultant had found the offer financially low, not in public interest, and detrimental to public exchequer, GMR improved its offer during further negotiations and raised the financial bid to 14.49 per cent of gross revenue while it was to retain 85.51 per cent. In March 2020, the State Government had decided to cancel the tender process and MIL issued a letter annulling the bid process. MIL had justified termination of bids and decision to go for fresh bids claiming that it was cancelled due to poor revenue return projection and possible financial loss to the Government.

 

The matter went to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. In the court, GMR had stated that it had planned to invest over Rs 1,200 crore over a period of time to fully transform Nagpur airport into a major aviation hub for which the capital expenditure would be Rs 1,685 crore of which equity requirement of Rs 500 crore to be funded by MIL and debt obligation of Rs 1,200 to be contributed by the concessionaire. In August 2021, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the cancellation of the bid process. Later, Central Government and AAI had filed a petition before the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment. Vide its order dated May 9, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment. The Centre and the AAI then filed the curative petitions against the Supreme Court order of 2022. The special bench of the Apex Court had taken up the curative plea for hearing in an open court. The bench had said that since it was taking up the curative petition, it had to keep in mind the balance of equity as there were competing interests of the State and the private firm.

 

The bench had earlier directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to submit the file notings pertaining to the tender process for the airport. The Supreme Court bench had sought ‘dispassionate views’ of the Solicitor General as an officer of the court and not as a lawyer of the Centre and the AAI in the matter. In response, the Solicitor General told the bench that the curative petition might not fall under the 2002 judgement. The top court closed the curative petitions after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in his personal capacity, said that it was his personal view that the curative petitions were not maintainable. He also made it clear that his submission was not based on any consultation with the Centre.