BIAL- Centre deal cancellation

BIAL- Centre deal cancellation
Complaint dismissed
By Subhash Chandra N S, DH News Service, Bangalore:
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC), New Delhi has dismissed a complaint seeking the cancellation of concessional agreement dated July 5, 2004 between Bengaluru International Airport Limited (BIAL) and Union Government, on grounds that it is not maintainable.

The new bench comprising of Justice O P Dwivedi, Chairman, MRTPC and M M K Sardana, member, (formed after one of the member O P Gupta said the matter should be heard by a different bench) of the Commission, hearing the petition by Association of Outsourcing Professionals (AOP), headed by former IT Secretary Vivek Kulkarni said that though the agreement is of commercial nature, the Government of India remains a party to it by virtue of signing the agreement.

The Commission, also said that the contention of the complainant, that the concession agreement between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and BIAL would mean that the Government of India unconditionally and irrevocably states that the signing and performance of the agreement is private and commercial act and not a governmental act is not tenable.

Void agreement
An application by AOP dated May 17, seeking reopening of HAL airport saying that closure of HAL airport and prevention of any international airport as well as domestic airport within 150 km radius is a void agreement according to Section 32 of MRTP

Act was also dismissed saying the notification dated may 16, 2008 by Government of India is sufficient to meet the requirements of the act.

The matter was adjourned after the first hearing on May 21 saying that the Commission is awaiting the orders from the Karnataka High Court as well as the Supreme Court.

During the hearing at Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph on June 9, MRTPC was directed to dispose the matter before July 10.

When the matter came up before Justice O P Dwivedi and member D P Gupta, the member opted out of the bench on July 3 saying it should be heard by a different bench and the matter was dismissed by the new bench.