IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27902 of 2007 Between: India Tourism Development Corporation, A Company incorported under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office, at Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, new Delhi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India rep by through its Secretary, Civil Aviation Department, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Hyderabad International Airport Ltd., Apma Crest, 2nd Floor, Banjara Hills, road, Hyderabad-500 003. 3. Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airpoet, New Delhi. 4. Mr. T. Sri Nagesh, Chief Operation Office, A pma Crest, 2nd Floor, Banjara Hills, Road Hyderabad-500 003. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to provide with the RFP documents for the bidding process for operating the Duty Free Shops, at the Hyderabad International Airport and pursuant thereto, consider the petitioner for the operation of Duty Free Shop at the said Airport and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.P.MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard Sri D.V.S. Rama Murthy, learned counsel representing writ petitioner and Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel representing second respondent-vacate petitioner. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide with RFP documents for bidding process for operating the Duty Free Shops at Hyderabad International Airport and pursuant thereto, consider the petitioner for operation of Duty Free Shop at the said airport and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Equally a counter-affidavit in detail had been filed and in para 4 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the writ petition became infructuous inasmuch as process of tendering was completed in February 2007 when Letter of Intent was issued to Nuance Group on 28th February 2007. It is also stated that subsequently on 04th April 2007 respondent No.2 entered into a licence agreement with the Nuances Group (India) Private Limited and granted the licence to the said company to operate Duty Free Shops at New Greenfield Airport at Shamshabad. It is also stated that this licence is on an exclusive basis and includes various categories including destination products. There would, therefore, be conflict of interest to grant licence to ITDC to run and operate destination products shops. This was intimated by respondent No.2 to the petitioner vide Letter dated 15th May, 2007 written in response to the petitioner’s letter dated 01.5.2007. The relevant copies have been placed before this Court. Further specific stand had been taken that the writ petition is barred by laches for the reasons set out in the counter-affidavit. Further specific stand had been taken that the writ petition is not maintainable and further several averments were made in paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the counter-affidavit and further parawise reply also had been given. 4. Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition be dismissed with exemplary costs in the light of the several false averments which had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. On a careful analysis of the respective stands taken by the parties and also in the light of the fact that the writ petitioner is Indian Tourism Development Corporation, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, this Court is not inclined to grant any costs. However, in the light of the specific stand taken in para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous giving liberty to the petitioner to question the other proceedings, if the writ petitioner is so advised. No costs. _________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: February 25, 2008. BSB ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}