Garhwal Post Bureau
Dehradun, 26 Mar: The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed petitions related to the operation of food and beverage services at Dehradun Airport, in a significant ruling on a dispute arising out of a concession agreement. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay rejected both the petitions filed by Manish Taxi Service in connection with the matter.
The case pertains to the operation of food and beverage outlets at the airport, for which the Airports Authority of India had entered into a concession agreement in 2024, granting the petitioner firm operational rights for a period of seven years. However, a dispute subsequently arose between the two parties over payment of licence fees and compliance with other contractual conditions.
According to the Airports Authority of India, the petitioner had failed to deposit outstanding dues within the stipulated time despite the issue of multiple notices. Following non-payment, the authority invoked the bank guarantee and recovered the dues before terminating the concession agreement on 31 May, 2025. Challenging this action, the petitioner approached the High Court, terming the termination as arbitrary and also sought a stay on the fresh tender process initiated by the authority.
The petitioner had contended that the complete site was not handed over in a timely manner, which had adversely affected the business operations. During the course of hearing, the High Court observed that the dispute between the parties was purely contractual in nature and that the agreement itself contained a clear provision for resolution through arbitration. In such circumstances, the court held that intervention through a writ petition was not appropriate.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had already approached the arbitration forum as well as the commercial court, where the matter is presently under consideration. It observed that there was no necessity for interference of the court at this stage. The Division Bench also clarified that its order should not be construed as a final comment on the merits of the case and that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent forum.
With these observations, both petitions were dismissed. Meanwhile, Advocate Manish Chakravarti, representing the petitioner, stated that the case has not been rejected on merits and that the Court has directed them to approach the appropriate forum, following which they would present their case before the district court.
