High Court Karnataka High Court

Bangalore International Airport … vs India Tourism Development Corpn … on 6 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Bangalore International Airport … vs India Tourism Development Corpn … on 6 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & A.S.Bopanna
in THE HIGH carrier or KA!illlATAl{A AT    ~ _

nxrsn 'nus was am mm as  5  '-
PRESENT I ' 'A 1 ' '

mm Horrnm mm. 9.9. nmmignnrig-cHmF:;i:s11m:':

AND }
mm Homnm ns:2;;3us~%i'1c;.!Q%%'1a4s1.iic»PAnuA
wan' A.IfP_EA.L n1Q.$38}§dO9"'leéia§.;r;Em
nmwmra:        
BANGALORE 11\:'1"E1V12:§£s§riVi§is:AL:}iiI§<;3§)-12*? L;M£rrED
ADMiNiS'TRATl.QN '%aL0c':;<V._ '  %  
BENGALURI} INTER?§ATI£1)NAL'AlRPORT
BEVANAHALLI, -.BANG.'aLQRE',«'3§G3{)O
THROUGH ma HEAD'-LE€}AL'M§i'E). 
COMPANY SECRETARY' V  »-- _   APPELLANT

(By  " me RAN<§A:§AT:1, Advocate.)

  IND:A..1?£:;uR;sM DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD

'V , ---- V "A COM?-VKNY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
"COMPANiES ACT, 1956 WITH ITS RECHSTERED
' _ 'OFFICE AT' SCOPE COMPLEX, 7', LODHI ROAD
'  NEW DELHI} 10 003, RERBY ITS AUTHORISEI)

VA   ...SiCrNATORY: S. I). RAWAT, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS

    THE UNION OF INDIA

THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION  



RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN
SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT

NEW DELHLIIO O03 THROUGH ITS
GENERAL lVlANAGER(LEGAL)

3 MR. SFEPHEN WIDRIG
ADMINISTRATION 31,003:   x .1
BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRI'-'()Ft'.l_'
DEVANAHALLI    "  
BANGALORE-560300   ..'. RESPQNDET'-i'i'S

mas WRIT APPEAL IS FILED' ,1:j';4ss 4={:»F Tz51E KARNATAKA
HIGH scum' ACT PRAYING 'IfQv'SE'i'vAS}D--E-,Ti*!'EGRDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.1g683?]':2OCv6fANI) 3,4215/2006 DATED
16101/2009. "   :   A   

THIS  =w:err~  UP FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING ON "§"HIS._ 'DjAY,"~~.__'3'HE comm' DELIVERED THE

F'OLLOWING:~   '

V % % Janausnr
«X   by P.D.Dinalmran, cu.)

  to our notice that gist the order dated

 ma " e in Writ Petition No. 16837] 2006, agmd st which

  is  herein, the third party stwcessful bidder has already

' prefer;-fed S.L.P. beanng M2335/2009, impleading the appellant

LL iieiein as party respondent thcrcm' .

2. Under such circumstances, it may not be proper R31″ .

to entertain {he present appeal when the matter is .4

~….«._.

the Apex Court. Hence sufice it, to permit

the Apex Court for appropriate relief, if he deeitee. V
Writ appeal is disposed of aoco1ti’nxgly:L”‘ . ”

‘”«Vé’L”°”*”* ” M :

,.n.,=.;;:,§:.:ce

Snbl

ifiacg’; ‘ieei 35.1%’. .:

wet-1