IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 464 of 2008 Between: M/s. Aviation Manpower Recruitment Induction & Training a partnership Firm, Registered under the Indian Partnership Act, Office at Neelam Apartments, Ferozguda, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner G. Satyanarayana S/o. Late G. Narasaraju aged 52 yrs,R/o. Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Airport Authority of India Rep. by its Chairman, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdargunj, Air Port, New Delhi. 2 Airport Authority of India Rep. by its Director Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus by calling records, declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the land for lease to run Indian Institute of Aerospace Technology and Training, on par with the other similarly situated educational institutions as illegal, arbitrary ultra virus and violation of principal of natural justice and in violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed assailing the action of the respondents in not considering its representation-dated 28.4.2007 in a way directed by this Court in W.P.No.25981 of 2005, disposed of on 7.12.2005. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 vide registration No.06823 of 1994. The objects of the partnership firm are: a) to promote education in aerospace and aeronautical engineering in and promoting maintenance engineers in aeronautics; b) to establish work shops as stipulated by the director general of civil aviation for maintaining of aircraft spares. In order to achieve the above objectives, the petitioner firm, has taken on lease an extent of 16,943 square meters from the respondents initially for a period of three years commencing from 1998-2001. The rate agreed is Rs.25/- per square meter. Even after expiry of the initial period, the petitioner continued to be in occupation. Thereafter some proceedings were initiated by the respondents and the petitioner-firm was evicted in accordance with the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants), Act, 1971. The petitioner-firm filed a representation on 28.4.2005 for allotment of space. When the representation was not considered, the petitioner-firm chose to file W.P.No.25981 of 2005. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Airport Authority of India to consider the representation of the petitioner-firm and pass appropriate orders. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ The only grievance of the petitioner is that he has made a representation on 28.4.2005 before the Chairman, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, New Delhi for allotment of land and buildings, building No.R/40 and adjacent sheds along with Aircraft parking facility at Old terminal Hyderabad Airport on lease basis for their Aircraft parking facility and to serve the country to provide young talented engineers in the fields of Aviation, Aircraft Maintenance Engineering and Aero Space and Space Communication Training Programmes etc., but the said representation has not been considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.4.2005, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that 1st respondent did not consider the representation dated 28.4.2005 despite the direction of this court in the above writ petition. 1st and 2nd respondents have filed a common counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the representation of the petitioner-firm has been considered and decision has been communicated to the petitioner-firm vide proceedings No.21012/68/2005-LM/664, dated 16/19.5.2005. Para 9 of the counter affidavit reads as under: “ 9. With regard to the averments made in para 13 and 14 of the writ affidavit, it is submitted that for the petitioner’s request for allotment of fresh land does not deserve consideration of the respondent for reasons stated above. As the petitioner has substantial outstanding dues towards the respondent inasmuch as for the simple reason that it has not come before this Honourable Court with clean hands, the instant Writ Petition does not deserve consideration under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs including the miscellaneous applications. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union Government-3rd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation for allotment of land and buildings in building No.R/40 and adjacent sheds along with Aircraft parking facility at Old terminal Hyderabad Airport on lease basis and whereas the respondents disposed of the representation as if the petitioner requested for allotment of structure No.5 for commercial purposes. He further submits that the education imparted by the petitioner-firm cannot be categorized as commercial purpose and therefore the consideration of representation by 1st respondent is not in accordance with the direction of this Court in W.P.No.25981 of 2005 disposed of on 7.12.2005. Learned counsel appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents submits that the petitioner became a defaulter being liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,23,43,804/- and therefore he is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. A further submission has been made that the communication sent to him dated 16/19.5.2005 pertains to building No.05 for which representation has been made by the petitioner and since the decision has been communicated to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to challenge the decision. In a way he submits that since the representation has been considered and necessary decision has been communicated to the petitioner, this writ petition has virtually become infructuous. I have gone through the communication sent to the petitioner dated 16/19-5-2005. It is explicit from the communication that 1st respondent has taken into consideration the representation of the petitioner and conveyed to the petitioner that Airports Authority of India has decided to consider and allot land for purposes such as establishment of Flying Training Institute etc., on the basis of tenders. Since the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by 1st respondent, no further direction is required to be given in this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision communicated to him by 1st respondent, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 25th June, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.464 OF 2008 25TH JUNE 2008.