Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by Delhi International Airport Ltd. (‘DIAL’) for a direction to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) to exclude the Airport Zone from its tender notice dated 28-11-2024, (‘impugned tender notice’) whereby MCD invited tenders for setting up Material Recovery Facility (‘MRF’) for management of dry solid waste in Najafgarh Zone, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J held that waste management of Airport Zone was the domain of DIAL and that MCD could not claim exclusive rights over the same.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned tender notice to the extent of inclusion of Airport Zone and Aerocity within the scope of work provided under it.
Background
The petitioner, DIAL is a Joint Venture, between GMR Airports Limited, Airports Authority of India (‘AAI’) and Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide and was established for carrying out obligations to undertake operation, maintenance, development, design, construction, upgradation, modernization, finance and management of Delhi Airport under the Operation Management and Development Agreement (‘OMDA’), executed between AAI in exercise of its powers under Section 12A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
Clause 2.1.1 of OMDA vests in DIAL exclusive rights and obligations to perform services and activities constituting ‘Aeronautical Services’ and ‘Non-Aeronautical Services’ at the Airport. Schedule 5 of OMDA details the aeronautical services and includes at Item 50 ‘waste and refuse treatment and disposal’. Clause 2.2.3 obligates DIAL to provide aeronautical services at the Airport Site. ‘Airport Site’ is defined under OMDA to mean underlying land agreed to be demised by AAI in pursuance of OMDA and all land acquired or leased by JV company during the term under the Lease Deed or otherwise.
DIAL had averred that Airport Site includes Airport terminals, passengers as well as cargo, in-flight catering/kitchen, administrative facilities, like ATC, Government and security offices, airside and cityside etc. and Aerocity.
Pursuant to MCD’s mandate, DIAL also established an MRF as per Rule 3(31) of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (‘2016 Rules’) at the airport premises with covers and netting and adequate arrangements to prevent attraction of birds and animals. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’), had been duly informed of establishment of MRF for storage, segregation, sorting and recovery of recyclables from municipal solid waste generated at Delhi Airport.
It was stated that through several communications, DIAL had informed MCD that the entire Airport Zone fell in the exclusive domain of DIAL with respect to functions and obligations under OMDA and 2016 Rules and had also requested for assistance to prevent any unauthorized agency from collecting solid waste from Airport Zone.
Furthermore, upon knowledge of the impugned tender notice, DIAL had written to MCD regarding the unlawful inclusion of the Airport Zone in the project area emphasizing that under Clause 2.1.1 of OMDA read with Schedule 5, it was the obligation of DIAL to carry out waste and refuse treatment and disposal and hence, the Airport and Aerocity be excluded from the scope of work in the tender notice.
However, there was no response and DIAL had filed the present petition, in which interim order was granted by the Court restraining MCD to proceed with the tender process to the extent it included the disputed areas in the scope of work.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that by virtue of Section 12 of the AAI Act, the AAI has the power to lease the airport premises for construction, development or better management and under Section 12A (4), the lessee, in this case DIAL, steps into the shoes of AAI to perform all necessary functions. The OMDA details obligations of DIAL wherein Article 8.1 lays down the general obligations of DIAL to comply with applicable laws at all times in the operation, maintenance, management, development etc. of the Airport. Article 8.3 pertains to ‘Master Plan’ and Clause 8.3.1 provides that JVC shall prepare a Master Plan for the Airport setting out the proposed development for the entire Airport.
The Court noted that, Sections 12 and 12A of the AAI Act read with the OMDA, made it clear that DIAL was the exclusive custodian of the Airport Site inter alia to provide Aeronautical and Non-Aeronautical Services enumerated in Schedules 5 and 6 of OMDA, respectively, in addition to other functions and obligations.
The next question that the Court considered was whether Aerocity fell within the Airport Site. The Court noted that the Master Plan prepared by DIAL clearly reflected that Aerocity was part of Delhi airport’s commercial zone. Furthermore, the Court rejected the assertion of MCD that it was not AAI’s function to approve the Master Plan and stated that through the OMDA, the AAI empowered DIAL to prepare the Master Plan which was subsequently approved by AAI and the Delhi Urban Arts Commission (‘DUAC’). The Court observed that DIAL being the custodian of the Airport Site had been managing all facilities in Aerocity, such as maintenance of internal roads, street lighting, horticulture, building construction approvals etc., including solid waste management and MCD was not involved in these activities.
The Court stated that the core question for deliberation was that which party was responsible for waste management at the Airport Site. In this regard, the Court referred to Rules notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in 2000 (‘2000 Rules’) and in 2016 (‘2016 Rules’). While the 2000 Rules provided that the Municipal Authority would be responsible for collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid wastes, the 2016 Rules contemplate application to urban local bodies and entities other than municipal authority. Since AAI is a designated ‘Local Body’ for the Airport Site and by virtue of the OMDA, DIAL had stepped into the shoes of AAI, it was empowered to manage solid waste at the Airport Site.
Additionally, the Court noted that even though MCD claimed to be managing solid waste in entire municipal area of Delhi including Airport Site, they failed to put forth even a shred of evidence supporting their claim. On the contrary, DIAL had placed a plethora of evidence, including agreements with several specialised waste management agencies that supporting its contention. MCD’s role was restricted to collecting residual waste from the Airport Site against charge of User Fee.
The Court further rejected MCD’s contention that waste management was the exclusive function of MCD under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (‘DMC Act’) and the 2000 and 2016 Rules. The Court observed that the neither the obligatory duties of MCD, provided under Section 42, nor the discretionary duties provided under Section 43, comprised of waste management as an exclusive function or domain of MCD to the exclusion of other entities. The Court thus, concluded that, while MCD may be performing the function of solid waste management in the municipal area, as defined in the DMC Act, in so far as the Airport Site was concerned, MCD could not assert its right to manage the solid waste.
Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned tender notice to the extent of its scope of work which included Aerocity and left it open to MCD to proceed with tender notice for the remaining project area.
[Delhi International Airport Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5945, decided on 11-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, Anuradha Dutt, Anish Kapur, Suman Yadav, Raghav Dutt, Gurudas Khurana, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Sanjay Jain, Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocates, Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel, Priyankar Tiwari, Shivam, Palak Jain, Nishank Tripathi, Shailendra Salaria, Kaushal Kapoor, Advocates.