Supreme Court Seeks Solicitor General’s Opinion on Curative Plea Against GMR Operating Nagpur Airport

The Supreme Court on Tuesday called upon the Solicitor General to provide insights on the Centre and the Airports Authority of India’s (AAI) curative petition against a previous court decision permitting GMR Airports to upgrade and operate Nagpur’s Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.

The issue originates from a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Bombay High Court decision. The High Court had annulled a March 2020 notification from MIHAN India Ltd (Multi Modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur) that terminated a contract with GMR Airports. This contract, awarded in 2019, was for the upgradation and management of the airport.

The central government and AAI, seeking reconsideration of the 2022 Supreme Court judgment, argue that their views were not adequately considered by the High Court. The matter was brought before a special four-judge bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, including Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and JK Maheshwari, in an open court setting.

Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the significance of the case, noting the substantial financial stakes involved and requested the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to offer his “dispassionate” views, not just as a law officer but as an officer of the court. The court aims to maintain a balance of equity, considering the competing interests of the state and the private firm.

Mehta agreed to assist the court and asked for the matter to be listed on Friday, which the court accepted.

In 2022, the Supreme Court had supported the High Court’s view that the tender process should adhere to principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law, stressing that the transparent bidding process helps fulfill constitutional requirements. It had asserted that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must be proportional to the public interest.

The ongoing legal dialogue revolves around the contentious cancellation of GMR’s contract and the potential issuance of fresh tenders by MIHAN, which claimed that the initial communication in 2019 was merely a bid acceptance and conditional upon further approvals.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles