{"id":216808,"date":"1999-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999"},"modified":"2017-06-12T03:08:57","modified_gmt":"2017-06-11T21:38:57","slug":"airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 57, 82 (1999) DLT 546, 1999 (51) DRJ 684, (2000) 124 PLR 23<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.<\/p>\n
1.     This revision petition is directed against the order dated  25.11.1997 passed  by the Senior Civil Judge directing for maintenance of  status  quo regarding  allotment of the Snack Bar in question. The respondent  No.1  as plaintiff  filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge contending  inter  alia that the defendant No. 1\/petitioner did not consider the bid of  respondent No.1  for  operating the Snack Bar counter on the first floor  of  the  New Visitors Lounge at Terminal II of Indira Gandhi International Airport,  New Delhi,  and  instead proceeded to award the contract in  violation  of  the terms and conditions governing the tender. It was also stated that although the respondent No.1 was the highest eligible bidder for the said  contract, the  petitioner was contemplating to award the said contract to some  other bidder whose bid was much less than that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the respondent  No.1\/plaintiff sought for a decree for grant of  perpetual  injunction restraining the defendant from awarding the contract to any person other  than the plaintiff and prayed for a mandatory  injunction  directing the  defendant No.1 to open the envelop ‘B’ of the plaintiff and award  the said  contract  to him. Alongwith the aforesaid suit an  application  under Order  39, Rules 1 and 2 was also filed by respondent No.1.  The  aforesaid application  was taken up for consideration after the petitioner filed  its written statement contending inter alia that the suit was not  maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 10, 14, 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. In the said written statement a plea was also taken by the  petitioner that  the  bid of the respondent No.1 was not submitted  according  to  the terms  and  conditions of the tender documents and he did  not  fulfill  the
\ncriteria  laid down in the said terms and conditions and that there was  no valid offer of respondent No.1 which could be considered for acceptance and therefore,  envelop `B’ of the plaintiff which contained the bid price  was not opened as the envelop `A’ submitted by him was not found to contain the required  documents. The Civil Judge, after considering the facts and  circumstances of the case held that the respondent No. 1 failed to make out  a prima  facie case in his favour for grant of an ad interim  injunction.  It was  also  found  by him that balance of convenience also did  not  lie  in favour  of  respondent No. 1 and that he would not suffer  any  irreparable loss  as the loss suffered could be compensated by way of  damages.  Having held this the Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules, 1 and 2 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Being  aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No.1  preferred an  appeal before the Senior Civil Judge. In the said appeal filed  by  the respondent  No.1 the Senior Civil Judge while issuing notice granted an  ad interim  order directing for maintenance of status quo regarding  allotment of the Snack Bar in question. The petitioner being aggrieved by the  aforesaid order filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of  India on which notice was issued on 19.1.1998. This court by a  further order  directed  that in the mean time implementation of  the  order  dated 25.11.1997  would remain stayed. In the mean time the petitioner  proceeded to award the contract in question in favour of respondent No. 2 and  therefore, by order dated 19.3.1998 this court ordered that if the contract  had been awarded the same would not be acted upon. The aforesaid order came  to
\nbe  modified on an application filed by respondent No. 2 that till  further orders the Canteen would be run by the contractor to whom the contract  had been  given by the petitioner. Pursuant to aforesaid order  the  respondent No.1  has been running the Snack Bar in question pursuant to award  of  the contract in its favour by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Mr.  Y.K. Kapur, appearing for the petitioner submitted that  the  respondent No.1 was not found eligible in terms of the information  furnished under  envelop ‘A’ containing the technical bid and therefore, the  envelop ‘B’ containing the financial bid of respondent No.1 was not opened. It  was submitted  that  since the respondent No.1 did not fulfill  the  eligibility criteria  the  Appellate  Court acted illegally in issuing  an  ad  interim injunction in the present case, without giving any speaking order  although the  Civil Judge had given detailed reasons for rejecting  the  application under  Order  39,  Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil  Procedure.  He  also submitted  that by passing the aforesaid order the Senior Civil  Judge  not only created a vacuum in respect of running of the snack Bar by passing the aforesaid  order but also caused virtual stoppage of running of  the  Snack Bar  which  was  catering to the need of the public  visiting  the  airport
\nlounge. The said order, he submitted, also caused heavy financial loss  for the  petitioner  was deprived of the right of collecting  revenue  and  the license  fee from the aforesaid Snack Bar. He also submitted that when  the suit  itself  was not maintainable there was no question  of  granting  any injunction in favour of respondent No.1 for issuance of such an  injunction was also in violation of the provisions of the specific Relief Act. It  was also  submitted that at the stage when the suit was filed no  contract  was awarded and therefore, the respondent No.1 had no locus standi to file  the suit  which was in the garb of enforcement of specific performance of  contract  which  was even otherwise not maintainable under the  provisions  of Specific Relief Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Mr. Rohtagi appearing for the respondent No. 2 also submitted that the suit instituted by respondent No.1 was not maintainable. He also  submitted that after taking into consideration all the tenders and the experience  of respondent No. 2 in the business of restaurant the petitioner by its letter dated  20.1.1998 awarded the respondent No. 2 a license for  operating  the Snack  Bar counter in respect of which an agreement was also  executed  between the parties. He also supported the submissions of the counsel appearing for the petitioner and relied upon the decisions in Raunaq International Vs. IVR Constructions Ltd.;  , Tata  Cellular Vs. Union of India;  and M\/s. Classic Motors Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited; reported in (40) 1997 DRJ 462.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Mr.  Ravinder  Sethi, appearing for the respondent No.1 on  the  other hand submitted that inspite of the fact that respondent No.1 had given  all the necessary documents in envelop ‘A’ as per requirements of notice inviting  tenders  and  also inspite of the fact that he  was  informed  through various  communications  that opening of final bid envelop  ‘B’  was  being deferred, the said envelop ‘B’ filed by him was not considered in violation of  the  terms and conditions of the tender and  the  petitioner  illegally proceeded to award the contract in favour of some other bidder. He  submitted that as there was apparent violation of the terms and conditions of the contract he filed the aforesaid suit seeking for an injunction. He  submitted  that  prayer for temporary injunction was illegally  rejected  by  the trial court and was rightly granted by the appellate court. He also submitted  that in spite of the fact that all the necessary conditions  specified
\nin  notice inviting tenders were satisfied by respondent No.1 and in  spite of the fact that he was the highest tenderer still his tender was  rejected by  the  petitioner which would cause loss of approximately  Rs.20  lac  as revenue  to the petitioner. He has also drawn my attention to the  comparative statement of the bidders as placed alongwith the records filed by  the petitioner and drawing my attention to the contents thereof submitted  that his tenders were rejected on non-existent grounds.\n<\/p>\n
6.   In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the  parties let me consider the issue that arises for my consideration  as to  whether  the order passed by the Appellate Court  granting  ad  interim injunction  should have been passed although the same was rejected  by  the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Tenders  were  invited by the petitioner for award of  a  license  for operating  the Snack Bar Counter on the first floor of new Visitors  Lounge at  the  Indira Gandhi International Airport. In the said  notice  inviting tenders  an  eligibility criteria was laid down that the party  filing  the tender  must  be a reputed party having catering experience  of  atleast  3 years  of  running good fast food  centre\/cafeteria\/restaurant  and  having minimum turn over of Rs.10 lac per annum atleast during the last  financial years. It was also stated in the said notice that tenders are to be submitted  in two envelops namely – envelops ‘A’ and ‘B’, envelop ‘A’  containing the  technical bid and envelop ‘B’ containing the financial bid. The  petitioner  has  placed  the records indicating consideration  of  the  various tenders  submitted  pursuant to the aforesaid notice inviting  tender.  The committee constituted for considering the tenders, considered the tender of respondent No. 2 as also of the petitioner submitted in envelop ‘A’. So far respondent No. 2 is concerned the committee found that he was the  existing licensee  operating  the subject Snack Bar Counter and  that  the  document submitted by it in envelop ‘A’ was found as per notice inviting tender  and therefore, there was no problem with the said tenderer. So far the respondent No.1 is concerned the committee found that the experience and turn over claimed\/submitted by respondent No.1 are not co-related with each other. It also  found  that  no operating license was submitted by  the  agency.  The committee  was also in doubt as to whether the experience of running  staff canteen  could be considered to be sufficient experience as desired in  the notice inviting tender. The committee decided to call for clarifications as stated in their report and the matter went upto the higher authorities  and after  a comparative study it was decided that the respondent No.1 did  not fulfill  the  eligibility criteria. Subsequently, the petitioner  held  that
\nexcept for the financial bids of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 others did not meet the norms prescribed in the tender documents. In view of the aforesaid conclusions  only  two tenderer were to be considered for awarding  of  the contract  and considering the suitability the petitioner decided  to  award the  contract in favour of the existing highest bidder namely –  respondent No.  2.  Subsequent to the aforesaid decision the contract was  awarded  in favour of respondent No. 2 and an agreement has also been executed  between the  parties in respect of the aforesaid Snack Bar which is also placed  on record.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Mr. Sethi drew my attention to the comparative statement which is also placed on record and invited my pointed attention to the remarks column  as appearing  in column 9. In the said column it has been incorporated by  the petitioner  that envelop ‘B’ of the tenderer namely – the  respondent  No.1 was  not opened due to reason indicated therein. The said reasons  are  recorded  as,  ‘relevant  experience not submitted’, ‘annual  turn  over  not attested  by Chartered Accountant but attested by an Advocate’,  ‘Operating license  for running catering establishment not submitted’ and  ‘experience claimed  and  turn over submitted are not co-related. He sought  to  submit that  the  last reason recorded by the petitioner itself  i.e.  ‘experience claimed  and turn over submitted not co-related’ indicates that  experience was claimed by respondent No.1 and he also submitted his turn over but  the same was illegally stated to have been not furnished under the same column.\n<\/p>\n
     A  careful scrutiny of the same would indicate that he was to  furnish experience certificate apart from claiming the same. Such a certificate was not  submitted  as stated by the petitioner whereas the  annual  turn  over submitted  should have been attested by Chartered Accountant and not by  an Advocate,  as  was done in his case which was not according  to  the  norms stated in the notice inviting tender. Accordingly, therefore, it could  not be  said that the decision of the petitioner that the respondent  No.1  did not  fulfill the eligibility criteria was based on non-existent reasons.  Be that as it may, at this stage however, I may make it clear that the  aforesaid observations are only a prima facie view and would require a  detailed investigation  when  the entire records are placed before  the  appropriate court when the suit is taken up for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The next question that arises is whether an injunction could or should have been granted in the instant case as was done by the Appellate Authority.  Admittedly,  no contract was executed either in favour  of  respondent No.1  or in favour of respondent No. 2 when the suit was instituted in  the trial  court.  At that stage the respondent No.1  challenged  the  decision making  process  on the ground that the said process was not  exercised  in terms  of  the  known principles. The license which was to  be  granted  in favour  of  the tenderers was a license which was determinable  in  nature. Therefore,  the  provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief  Act  have relevance  to the facts and circumstances of the present case.  The  provisions  of  Section 14(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act require  that  if  a breach of contract could be compensated by payment of damages the  contract cannot be specifically enforced. Sub-section (c) thereof provides that  the determinable  contracts cannot be enforced by decree of  specific  performance. Therefore, in respect of a license which is awarded to the respondent No.1  and for preventing from awarding such a contract the  aforesaid  suit was instituted by respondent No.1 the provisions of Section 14(1)(c)  could be  made applicable. Compensation in money in the present case could be  an adequate  relief for the contract is of a commercial nature in  which  case damage  could be assessed and determined. In M\/s. Indian Airlines  Corporation  Limited  Vs. Amritsar Gas Company, JT 1994 SC 604 the  Supreme  Court held that in respect of an agreement which is revocable by either party  in accordance  with clause 28 by giving 30 days notice the only  relief  which could be granted was award of compensation for the period of notice i.e. 30 days. It was also held by the Supreme Court that in a matter like that  the relief  of restoration of the distributorship even on the finding that  the breach  was  committed by the Corporation was contrary to  the  mandate  of Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act. In the context of the  aforesaid case the Supreme Court held that the grant of the relief of restoration  by an  award could not be sustained and the same was set aside by the  Supreme Court.  In a matter where no final relief could be granted for  enforcement of  a contract no injunction could also be granted as is apparent from  the provisions  of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 41  provides that  an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of  a  contract the performance of which could not be specifically enforced and when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode  of proceedings except in the case of breach of trust.\n<\/p>\n
     In  this connection reference may also be made to the decision of  the Supreme  Court  in Raunaq International Ltd. (supra)  wherein  the  Supreme Court  has held that the court should weigh conflicting public interest  to find  if there is overwhelming public interest as against public  detriment in  granting the stay. It was also held therein that where as a  result  of the  stay  order  public detriment outweighs public  interest  or  benefit, person  at  whose instance the interim order is obtained must be  made  accountable  and asked to reimburse the increase of cost, if any, or  damages suffered by the opposite party as a result of the interim order.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Indeed  by the order of the appellate court directing for  maintenance of  status  quo in respect of the Snack Bar in question a vacuum  has  been created and the said Snack Bar Counter became non-functional. That has also caused a chain of reactions like depriving the general public from  getting catering service at the Visitors Lounge and also causing loss to the public exchequer in terms of loss of revenue. The public in general who was  using the  services of the counter visiting the Indira Gandhi International  Airport suffered due to lack of the facility available therein. Subsequent  to the filing of the present petition in this court and on passing an  interim order  by this court allowing the respondent No. 2 to run the said  counter the respondent No. 2 has been operating the said counter. In my  considered opinion public interest demands that the said arrangement should be allowed to  be  continued till the final decision in the suit filed  by  respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Accordingly, I allow the petition and set aside the interim injunction granted  by  the Appellate Court and hold and direct that the  present  arrangement whereby the respondent No. 2 is operating the aforesaid Snack Bar Counter at first floor of the new Visitors’ Lounge, Indira Gandhi  International Airport, New Delhi, shall continue till the decision in the suit. It is  also made clear that whatever views have been expressed herein are  all prima  facie expressions at this stage and they should not be  treated  and construed as final opinion on the allegations and merits of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Considering  the urgency in the matter and taking notice of the  facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the suit instituted  by  respondent No.1 should be disposed of as  expeditiously  as possible by the trial court and therefore, all steps should be taken by the trial  court to dispose of the suit at an early date, even if necessary  by holding day to day trial in the suit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 57, 82 (1999) DLT 546, 1999 (51) DRJ 684, (2000) 124 PLR 23 Author: . M Sharma Bench: M Sharma ORDER Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAirport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-11T21:38:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-11T21:38:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2968,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-11T21:38:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-11T21:38:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-11T21:38:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999"},"wordCount":2968,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999","name":"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-11T21:38:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/airport-authority-of-india-vs-shri-kanwar-singh-yadav-on-12-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Airport Authority Of India vs Shri Kanwar Singh Yadav on 12 October, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216808","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}