IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 322 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2008 Vimantal Hamal Ekta Sanghatana ...... ...... Appellant V/s Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. ...... ...... Respondent. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.P.K.Samdani, Sr.Adv. a/w Mr.Farid Karachiwala and Mr.Suraj Iyer i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., For respondent No.1. Mr.G.D.Kulkarni a/w Mr.Sunil Chavan i/by M/s.Kini & Co., Adv. For respondent No.2. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 17th OCTOBER, 2008. PC: Heard Mr.Suryawanshi, Adv. For the appellant, Mr.Kulkarni, for respondent No.1 and Mr.Samdani, Sr.Adv. For respondent No.2. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 12.3.08 passed by the City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.84 of 2008 in SC Suit No.579/07 whereby respondent No.1' s notice of motion was made absoluter in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. Respondent No.1 filed SC Suit No.579/07 for injunction restraining the appellant and its members by an order of injunction from entering upon the airport premises more particularly described in Ex.`B' to the plaint. The above notice of motion was filed for 1 temporary injunction during the pendency of suit. It was case of the 1st respondent that it is company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and were assigned inter alia the functions of managing airports efficiently and the duty of providing air traffic service and air transport services at airport. It was contended that the appellant is a union comprising of 80 members and the union is registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926. It is alleged that the members of the appellant are basically unauthorised loaders and/or porters, force the passengers to use trolleys which in fact are provided by the 1st respondent and then charge the passengers trolley tax. It was also alleged that these loaders usually target foreigners and families with children. In short according to respondent No.1 members of the appellant-union under the guise of operating their services are foisting themselves on the hapless passengers, extorting monies from the passengers and subjecting them to gross abuse. It is specifically submitted that the 1st respondent' s department has received several complaints from the passengers whereby members of the appellant-union have been found indulging in various illegal activities including cheating, extortion, touting, unauthorised currency exchange and other forms of harassment of passengers. 3. Per contra the appellant' s case was that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata as respondent No.1 was pursuing civil application No. 64/07 in Civil Contempt Petition No.8/07. It was 2 further submitted that there are many proceedings in which High Court has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff restraining defendant- union to work within the terminal building. 4. As stated above learned City Civil Court Judge after hearing both the sides has made the notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 is the lessee of respondent No.2 and under the lease deed security functions are not assigned to respondent No.1. He further submits that under section 12 of the Airport Authorities of India Act 1994 security functions are entrusted to Central Industrial Security Force and therefore respondent No.1 could not have filed a suit on the alleged grounds of security and safety of the passengers at airport. 6. Mr.Samdani, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order. He submitted that the rights of the appellant-union are concluded by the Division Bench order in Writ Petition No.1105 of 2005. 7. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having gone though the impugned order I find no merit in this appeal. Admittedly the members of the appellant-union are not granted any licence to work within the area of airport. The appellant-union had filed Writ Petition No.1105/05 for directing respondent No.2 to permit their members to work as loaders outside the terminal building 3 of Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport building. This writ petition was disposed of after making following observations: “Taking into consideration the aspect of the safety of the people and security of the airport, no interference is called for. Respondent No.3 rightly did not permit the petitioner (i.e. the present defendant) to carry on its activities at the airport. This petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly disposed of.” In my view, rights of the appellant-union and its members stand concluded and therefore without obtaining any licence they cannot work within the area of airport. 7. Let us now consider the submission of Mr.Suryawanshi that respondent No.1 is the lessee under lease agreement and security functions are not assigned to them and they have been assigned to CISF. Under sub-clause (O) of clause 4 of section 42 of Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, regulations by name Airports Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulation 2003 are framed. Sub- clause 8 of clause 3 of these regulations defines the Competent Authority as follows: “Competent Authority” means in relation to exercise of any power, the Authority, the Chairperson, and any member authorised by the Chairperson, Airport Director or Controller of Aerodrome or In charge of any Airport or civil enclave or any other officer specified by the Chairperson in that behalf.” There is no dispute that respondent No.1 is the competent authority 4 in terms of agreement. Clause 22 of the said regulation speaks about authority of the competent authority requiring any person to lave the airport or particular part of airport or enclave. Clause 24 of the said regulations deals with general provisions. Sub-clause 5 of clause 24 is more important in this regard which reads thus: “24.5. No person shall without the permission of the Competent Authority sell or distribute or offer anything for sale or hire or make any offer of services within the airport or civil enclave.” Plain reading of aforesaid provisions will reveal that the appellant- union or its members cannot without permission of respondent No.1 offer any service within the airport and respondent No.1 can ask any person acting in contravention of these regulations to leave the airport or enclave area. 8. In view of these provisions I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr.Suryawanshi. Learned City Civil Court Judge has taken possible view of the matter and I find no reason to interfere with the same. Appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore same is dismissed without any order as to costs. 8. Since Appeal from Order has been dismissed, Civil Application No.383 of 2008 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. 17.10.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 5