Madras High Court directs Centre to decide on airport multiplex policy, allows PVR INOX to continue operations

The high court pointed out that the Centre could consider “many other aspects” including the operation of such facilities in other countries before it evolves a policy decision in this regard.

The order further pointed out that other major international airports had functioning cinema multiplexes even inside the secured area in addition to cinema multiplexes outside the security zone.

It came on record that AAI’s counsel additional solicitor general A R L Sundaresan had provided “security issues” as one of the reasons for closing the operations of the cinema hall.

The court, however, noted, “What should not be lost sight of the fact is that the cinema multiplex, in the case on hand, is outside the security zone.”

‘Beneficial to passengers’

The court said that the cinema multiplex was beneficial to passengers since the “cinema multiplex is operational outside the secured zone” and accessible to visitors who come to receive the passengers and also by the passengers, who come beforehand and want to spend their time in leisure without walking out of the airport.

“Such activities are permitted only to off-set the travel costs as would otherwise be imposed on the passenger.”

Background, arguments

Through its order on July 7, 2023, AAI directed INOX to close the cinema hall operations with immediate effect.

INOX was operating in the unsecured commercial zone (Aerohub) of the multi-level car parking complex within the airport premises in February 2023, it claimed.

The PVR INOX Ltd, however, argued that AAI’s conduct was “arbitrary and unconstitutional” and was in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution as the said act of running a cinema hall was expressly permitted by the authority.

The multiplex further argued that its act of running cinema was not an “isolated act”, but a consistent affirmative conduct which gave rise to a “legitimate expectation” and this sudden letter of AAI to stop operations of the cinema hall in the premises was not only in breach of their legitimate expectation, but was against the “doctrine of promissory estoppel.”

The plea sought directions to AAI to permit PVR Inox Limited to continue its business operations in the MLCP Complex in terms of the Development Agreement and the Sub-License Deed.

On the other hand, additional solicitor general Sundaresan submitted that there was “no jural relationship” between their client, AAI, and the petitioner and mentioned that the derivation of rights of the INOX Ltd was only from a sub-license agreement to which the AAI was not a party.

The high court noted that AAI had projected security, safety and other concerns but noted there is no prohibition under the AAI Act.

Directions

• AAI directed to place the issue with regard to establishment of cinema multiplex within the secured/unsecured zone of the airport/airport premises before the Ministry of Civil Aviation, within four weeks.
• Ministry of Civil Aviation directed to consider the same and take a policy decision on the issue with regard to permitting of cinema multiplex within the secured/unsecured zone of the airport/airport premises as expeditiously as possible.
• Till a policy decision is taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, order of status quo granted by court in favour of the petitioners shall continue.
• If the Ministry of Civil Aviation permits the establishment of cinema multiplex within the secured/unsecured zone of the airport/airport premises, AAI will follow provision of the Development Agreement and negotiate with the petitioners for entering into a sub-license to run the cinema multiplex in the MLCP complex.
• If the Ministry of Civil Aviation decides in the negative, petitioners and operators of multilevel car parking have liberty to work out their remedy.