State Support Agreement Mumbai Airport

By Senza categoria
Dic 17

State Support Agreement Mumbai Airport

“xxii. It is asserted that Respondent 3 not only has the responsibility to build a world-class airport, but also has an obligation to share revenues with the government and generate high revenues from non-aeronautical services. The operation of duty-free shops is an important non-aeronautical service that can generate revenue. In addition to obtaining revenue for respondent No. 3 and the government, the duty-free shop is very important for the general class, public perception and the stature of an international airport. Airports such as Schipol, Frankfurt, Singapore (Changi) and Dubai are known worldwide for their excellent duty-free purchases. It would not be an exaggeration to say that one of the reasons why these international airports have become successful international hubs is the lure of duty-free shopping. The intention of No. 3 was to build a world-class, world-class duty-free shopping facility. The addition of all these activities, duties and responsibilities of the Authority, the reciprocal benefits and the obvious fact that the restaurant is operated as an integral part of a public building dedicated to a public parking service, show that the degree of state participation and participation in the discriminatory measures that the Fourteenth Amendment was to condemn must be condemned. It is ironic that in one part of a single building, built and maintained by a public authority, all persons have the same rights, while in another part, which also serves the public, a Negro is a second-class citizen who, because of his race, is without rights and without the right of service. but at the same time enjoys equal access to nearby restaurants located in entirely private buildings.

As the Chancellor indicated, the authority could have answered Eagle in the affirmative in its lease agreement in order to discharge the responsibility for the Fourteenth Amendment imposed on the private enterprise as a result of state involvement. But no state should effectively evade its responsibilities, either by ignoring them, simply by not launching them, for whatever reason. It is not comforting for an individual who is denied the same protection of the laws as he was made in good faith. Of course, the conclusions drawn by the various appelal courts in similar cases do not depend on such a distinction. Through their inaction, the Authority and, through it, the State not only participated in the refusal of the service, but chose to place its power, ownership and prestige behind the accepted discrimination. The State has so far placed itself in a position of interdependence with Eagle, that it must be recognized as a common participant in the attacked activity which, for this reason, cannot be considered “purely private” to the point of entering the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment without sic.” 55. In light of the case, it can therefore be established with certainty that respondent No. 3 exercises the public service in the public interest and, therefore, in the performance of those functions in the provision of duty-free shops at international airports, so that he is required to act fairly and reasonably and appropriately. , so that if it decides to award a contract for a specific activity at airports, which is in the public interest, it must choose a person through open competition through clear objects and standards, and its action must be transparent.