Judgment :- 1. Heard Ms.Innisai, learned counsel for Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the rights of the petitioners to ply taxies on the basis of car rental service (Prepaid System) at the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu. 3. According to the petitioners, they are all members of the Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi, Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, the second respondent herein, which is granted with the right to ply taxies in the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu on the basis of Car Rental Service (Prepaid System). They would submit that a number of taxies have been plying in and around Coimbatore for so many years and they have been operating taxies from the Civil Aerodrome at Sulur and Peelamedu. 3a. In order to regulate the plying of taxies, the Aerodrome Officer, Coimbatore has been issuing permits, purporting to act under Rule 78A(5) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and the petitioners are able to trace a few sample permits of the year 1976. Subsequently, as and when new applicants came to the field, the Aerodrome Officer was regulating the business, insisting discipline on the part of the drivers, following a system of preventing the taxi drivers from jumbling the queue. Because of the nature of the passenger potential, all the taxi owners are not able to have full utilization of their facilities and have been seeking out only a hand to mouth existence all along. As taxi drivers, the petitioners claim that they have a fundamental right to carry on the business without any interruption from anybody except the authority regulating their trade. There was an instance when a local Congress (I) leader requested for grant of a permit to one individual and the Aerodrome Officer, taking into consideration the potential and after hearing the views of the taxi drivers, intimated the said Congress (I) leader and the Member of Parliament about the correct situation. 3b. The petitioners would state that all the taxi owners and drivers of the Coimbatore Aerodrome are not members of any Union and every attempt by several Unions to interfere with their trade was not successful. Therefore, the taxi men Union has always developed a grief against them. 3b. The petitioners would state that all the taxi owners and drivers of the Coimbatore Aerodrome are not members of any Union and every attempt by several Unions to interfere with their trade was not successful. Therefore, the taxi men Union has always developed a grief against them. At that point of time, there was no Association of Drivers plying taxies at the Airport and one G.Subramanian, claiming himself as the President of an Association in the name and style of Coimbatore Airport Taxi Drivers Association, filed a suit in O.S.No.580 of 1987 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore for a permanent injunction restraining the Aerodrome Authorities and the Police Officers and the petitioners herein from interfering with the rights to park taxies and hire passengers to and from the Airport. The suit was ultimately withdrawn as settled out of Court by filing a memo. 3c. It was further contended by the petitioners that later on, a meeting was held among the Collector of Coimbatore, the Superintendent of Police, the aforesaid Subramaniam and the Aerodrome Officer. Pursuant to that meeting, an order was passed on 01.12.1987 by the first respondent, cancelling all the permits for plying taxies in Peelamedu and Sulur and in such circumstance, the petitioners herein challenged the said order in W.P.No.12376 of 1987 and this Court granted interim stay and later, the writ petition itself was allowed by an order dated 27.06.1990. 3d. It is also informed by the petitioners that the Civil Aerodrome was closed down and the Aerodrome at Peelamedu was also extended and modernized to serve the needs of the public. There were plenty of space for parking taxies for picking up the passengers and all the taxies were free to enter the Aerodrome area and park the taxies at the place reserved for them and as such, all the petitioners herein were plying taxies in an out of the Aerodrome and they carried their work without interference from any person, whatsoever. Later in the year 1991, all the taxi owners and drivers formed themselves into an Association, by name Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi and Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, (hereinafter referred to as Association) registered under the Societies Registration Act in Registration No.72/91. 3e. Later in the year 1991, all the taxi owners and drivers formed themselves into an Association, by name Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi and Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, (hereinafter referred to as Association) registered under the Societies Registration Act in Registration No.72/91. 3e. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2003, when the right of plying taxies in and out of the Aerodrome were floated by tenders, the Association participated in the tender and was successful and all the members contributed Rs.6,500/-each and the tender was taken in the name of the President of the Association. The tender was for the purpose of plying taxies in an out of the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu on the basis of Car Rental Service (Prepaid System). As such, all the petitioners herein were plying taxies on the basis of car rental service. 3f. While that being so, the respondents herein, for the purpose unknown, refused to allow the petitioners herein inside the Airport to pickup and drop passengers and further allowed about 40 new persons, who were not even members of the Association, to ply taxies on the basis of car rental services. Therefore, the petitioners issued a notice to the second respondent herein to co-operate and permit the petitioners to ply taxies on the basis of car rental service. On receipt of the said notice, the second respondent herein issued a reply stating that the petitioners herein have sold the permits to other third parties and they have lost their rights to continue as members in the Association and ply taxies in the Aerodrome and therefore, the petitioners, not being members of the Association, have no rights to ply taxies in the Airport. As per the agreement dated 24.10.1990, entered into between the first respondent and the second respondent, only the members of the Association are permitted to ply taxies and non-members are not permitted to ply taxies. As such, it was stated in the reply notice that the petitioners have no right to ply taxies and the order in W.P.No.12376 of 1987 is not applicable to the petitioners. 3g. It is claimed by the petitioners that still they are members of the Association and their rights to ply taxies in the Aerodrome are not in any way affected. 3g. It is claimed by the petitioners that still they are members of the Association and their rights to ply taxies in the Aerodrome are not in any way affected. As per the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.12376 of 1987, every taxi owner or taxi driver has right to enter the Aerodrome, pick up and drop passengers in the Airport and the rights of the petitioners, who are parties to the earlier writ petition cannot in any way be taken away by the respondents herein. The first respondent, being influenced by the second respondent, is also refusing permission to the petitioners herein to enter the Aerodrome premises. 3h. It is the further case of the petitioners that from 1980 onwards, they are plying taxies in and around the Aerodrome in Peelamedu and their rights guaranteed under Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India cannot be denied by the respondents and the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to ply taxies in the Aerodrome area is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for the above direction. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter stating that this writ petition is not maintainable either in law or facts of the case. The petitioners are the members of the second respondent Association, which is granted with the right to ply taxies in the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners are fictitious and dubious and the petitioners are not entitled to file this writ petition. 4a. It is also stated in the counter that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) granted license for operating Car Rental Service at Coimbatore Airport to the second respondent, viz., Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi, Taxi Owners and Drivers Associations (Registered under the Societies Registration Act 72/1991) represented by one U.C.Arumugam, President for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.2004 through call of open tenders, so as to provide the amenities and facilities to the passengers and visitors at Coimbatore Airport. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between AAI and the Association, represented by U.C.Arumugam, President. As per the terms and conditions of the license, only the members of the licensee are allowed to ply the taxies and thus, the allegations made by the petitioners are factually incorrect and thereby denied. 4b. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into between AAI and the Association, represented by U.C.Arumugam, President. As per the terms and conditions of the license, only the members of the licensee are allowed to ply the taxies and thus, the allegations made by the petitioners are factually incorrect and thereby denied. 4b. The first respondent would state that the case in O.S.No.580 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Judge of Coimbatore, filed by Coimbatore District Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, represented by the then President M.Velusamy, seeking to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their rights to park their taxies and hire passengers to and fro in Peelamedu Airport and Sulur Airport was dismissed on 14.12.1987 due to out of Court settlement and it has no relevance to the present case. 4c. In the counter, it is stated that all the earlier permissions granted to ply the taxies in the Airport were cancelled by the Authority, which was challenged by the Taxi Owners and Drivers in W.P.No.12376 of 1987 and interim stay was granted therein and subsequently, an agreement was signed on 24th October 1990 in respect of Taxies in the Taxi parking area at Coimbatore Airport between AAI & Coimbatore Airport Taxi Owners and Drivers. Later on, all the members of Taxi Owners and Drivers formed themselves into an Association in the name and style of Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi and Taxi Owners and Drivers Association and got it registered under the Societies Registration Act in Registration No. 72/1991 and the said Association participated in the tender during the year 2003 and became a successful bidder and a contract was awarded in their favour for a period of one year and thereafter for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2009. Hence, the agreement made during 1990 has got no relevance to this case and that the petitioners cannot claim any rights to ply taxies at Coimbatore Airport as a matter of right. 4d. It is the further submission of the first respondent in the counter that the license for operating Car Rental Service Contract at Coimbatore Airport was awarded to the second respondent for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.2004 through call of open tender. 4d. It is the further submission of the first respondent in the counter that the license for operating Car Rental Service Contract at Coimbatore Airport was awarded to the second respondent for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.2004 through call of open tender. An Agreement was entered into between AAI and Association and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the licensee was allotted the counter space inside the arrival hall and allowed to operate the car rental service from Coimbatore Airport and the same is being continued and hence, at no point of time AAI refused the members of the licensee Association to ply the taxies on the basis of car rental services and hence, the allegations of the petitioners are denied. Since there was a split in the Association, a section of the members sold their permits to the third parties. The petitioners, who were the section of members, resigned from the Association and thus, they have been denied to operate the car rental service by the licensee Association. 4e. The first respondent also submitted in the counter that AAI reserves itself the right to grant the license to any agency for providing amenities to the passengers at Coimbatore Airport and accordingly, a contract was awarded through call of open tender and an agreement was entered into with the Licensee. Hence, at no point of time, AAI is influenced by the second respondent to refuse the petitioners to enter and pick up the passengers in the Airport. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter. It is stated therein that the second respondent Association, namely, Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi, Taxi Owners and Drivers Association is registered under Societies Registration Act in Registration No.72/91 on 22.04.1991 by the Registrar of Societies, Coimbatore. However, it is true that the petitioners issued a lawyers notice dated 10.06.2006 to the second respondent for which the second respondent replied to the petitioners stating that the petitioners already sold their permits of taxies to third parties and also relinquished their rights to continue as members in the association and to ply taxies in the Aerodrome. Hence, the petitioners are not members and they do not have any right whatsoever on account of surrendering their rights to ply the taxies. 5a. Hence, the petitioners are not members and they do not have any right whatsoever on account of surrendering their rights to ply the taxies. 5a. The second respondent would also state that an agreement dated 24.10.1990 was entered into among the 2nd respondent Association, Coimbatore District Taxi Owners Association and the Aerodrome Authority. Only the members of the said two associations were permitted to ply taxies in and around Aerodrome and non-members were not permitted. Since the petitioners sold their rights to third parties and ceased to be the members of the said Association, they do not have any right to ply taxies. It was also pointed out that among the 40 members, 26 members are members of the 2nd respondent Association and the remaining 14 are members of the Coimbatore District Taxi Owners Association and thus, only the members of the said two Associations were alone permitted to ply taxies. All the past members of the said two Associations are the members of the present association, who are totalling 40 in number. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is denied. 5b. It is the specific stand of the second respondent that the petitioners relinquished their rights as members of the Association in various spells and they have surrendered their rights to third parties so as to enable the third parties to become the members of the Association. While so, by suppressing all the material facts, the writ petitioners preferred this writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents in any manner to interfere with their rights. 5c. In the counter, it is submitted that the Airports Authority of India floated tender to ply taxies on the basis of Car Rental Service (Pre-paid System) at the Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu, Coimbatore by calling for tender bid from various parties. The second respondent Association was the successful tenderer and initially, the tender was for a period of one year and thereafter, a fresh tender was called for, for a period of five years during the year 2004. Once again, the second respondent Association turned out to be the successful bidder and tender was awarded in their favour to ply taxies on the basis of Car Rental Service (Pre-paid System) in and out Civil Aerodrome, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. 5d. Once again, the second respondent Association turned out to be the successful bidder and tender was awarded in their favour to ply taxies on the basis of Car Rental Service (Pre-paid System) in and out Civil Aerodrome, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. 5d. The second respondent would contend that again during the month of September 2009, the second respondent Association turned out to be the successful bidder and they were awarded the contract to ply taxies in and out of Civil Aerodrome at Peelamedu Airport for a period of five years from 2009 to 2014 and a contract agreement was entered into between the Association and AAI, represented by the Airport Director in this regard. Thus, the second respondent is plying taxies on the basis of being the successful tenderer and the disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is to be dismissed in limine. That apart, in view of the change of circumstances, by virtue of floating a new tender by the Airport Director during the year 2009, subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, the same has given rise to a fresh cause of action, rendering the writ petition infructuous, apart from the legal position that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the writ petition seeking such a relief. Moreover, AAI, represented by the Airport Director was not impleaded in the writ petition, who is the appropriate authority and on the other hand, Senior Aerodrome Officer was made as a party respondent. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, the 2nd respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are the members of the second respondent Association and they are the beneficiaries of the order of this Court in W.P.No.12376 of 1987, dated 27.06.1990. He would further submit that since the petitioners are plying taxies from 1987, their rights guaranteed under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India have to be protected. 7. He would further submit that since the petitioners are plying taxies from 1987, their rights guaranteed under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India have to be protected. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12376 of 1987, an agreement was signed on 24.10.1990 and in view of the Subsequent development that all the Taxi owners and Drivers formed themselves into an Association, the first respondent took a policy to call for a open tender system to award contract to the Taxi Owners and Drivers Association. Since the petitioners sold their permits to third parties, they are not the members of the Association as on date and they cannot seek for any direction forbearing the respondents from permitting the successful tenderer to ply taxies. 8. Learned counsel for the second respondent Association would contend that the petitioners relinquished their rights by selling their taxi permits to third parties and they also lost their right to continue as members of the second respondent Association. Therefore, they are not entitled to seek for any relief in the form of injunction. Moreover, the second respondent was the successful bidder and a contract was awarded for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2009. Thereafter, they participated in the subsequent tender proceedings and also became successful bidder for a period of five years with effect from 2009 to 2014 and continued their operations in plying taxies. Hence, this writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material documents available on record and analysed the relevant provisions of law. 10. A circumspection of the facts of this case would reveal that the petitioners were plying taxies in and around Coimbatore and also operating from the Civil Aerodrome, Sulur and Peelamedu. It is seen that the Aerodrome Officer, Coimbatore has been issuing permits, purporting to act under Rule 78A(5) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. Thereafter, some of the new applicants entered into the field for plying taxies. For the purpose of regulating the business of taxies plying from the Aerodrome; for insisting discipline on the part of the drivers; and also for preventing the taxi drivers from jumbling the queue, the first respondent took certain decisions in this regard in the year 1986. Thereafter, some of the new applicants entered into the field for plying taxies. For the purpose of regulating the business of taxies plying from the Aerodrome; for insisting discipline on the part of the drivers; and also for preventing the taxi drivers from jumbling the queue, the first respondent took certain decisions in this regard in the year 1986. Several unions were involved in the business of the petitioners trade and developed a grief against them. Therefore, a suit in O.S.No.580 of 1987 was filed praying for permanent injunction restraining the Aerodrome Authority and Police Officers from interfering with the rights of parking taxies and hire passengers to and from the Airport. The said suit ultimately came to be dismissed due to settlement out of court. Thereafter, it appears that all the earlier permission granted to ply taxies were cancelled by the Authorities and the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.12376 of 1987. The order passed therein reads as under: "3. It cannot be denied that a vested right had come to be acquired by the petitioners by reason of the order of the first respondent made on 15.10.1976. It is elementary that before that vested right could be adversely affected or taken away by competent authority, the principles of natural justice would require that the persons like petitioners should have been put on notice and given an opportunity to state their case. It is not disclosed in the impugned order the circumstances which compelled the Collector to recommend the cancellation of the permits issued as early as on 15.10.1976. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.12.1987 is quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the civil aerodrome at Sulur had been closed down and the aerodrome at Peelamedu had been extended and modernised to serve the needs of the public. He would also submit that there is plenty of space for parking taxies, which may to into the Aerodrome for picking up passengers and that all taxies are free to enter into the Aerodrome area and park the taxies at the place reserved for them and pick up passengers in an orderly manner. However, this submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent is besides the point. However, this submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent is besides the point. In this writ petition, what we are concerned is, before the impugned order dated 01.12.1987 was made, whether the principles of natural justice had been followed and on that ground, the petitioners contentions have been accepted. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. There will be no order as to costs." 11. From the above order, it is seen that as the cancellation of permits was without following the principles of natural justice, the same was set aside. In the said order, it is noticed that the Sulur Aerodrome was closed down and the Aerodrome at Peelamedu was also extended and modernized to serve the needs of the public. Moreover, plenty of space is available for parking taxies and this aspect was taken into account in that order in order to regulate the entry parking system in an orderly manner. 12. In the instant case, the first respondent has come out with an agreement signed on 24.10.1990 in respect of Taxies in the Taxi parking area at Coimbatore Airport between AAI & Coimbatore Airport Taxi Owners and Drivers. Later on, all the Taxi Owners and Drivers formed themselves into an Association in the name and style of Coimbatore Airport Tourist Taxi and Taxi Owners and Drivers Association and got it registered under the Societies Registration Act and the Registration Number is 72/1991. Thereafter, the first respondent adopted a system called open tender with a policy to regulate the entire parking facility and they called for an open tender during the year 2003 for operating Car Rental Service at Coimbatore Airport and the second respondent was the successful bidder and the contract was awarded in favour of the second respondent for a period of one year and thereafter for a period of five years with effect from 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2009. 13. It is now claimed by the second respondent that subsequently, a tender for a period of five years i.e. 2009 to 2014 was called for, in which also, the second respondent is the successful bidder and they are plying taxies by providing service to the public through its members. 14. It appears that an agreement was entered into on 24.10.1990 between two Associations, viz., the second respondent Association, the Coimbatore District Taxi Owners Association and the Aerodrome Authority. 14. It appears that an agreement was entered into on 24.10.1990 between two Associations, viz., the second respondent Association, the Coimbatore District Taxi Owners Association and the Aerodrome Authority. It is claimed by the first respondent that those, who are successful bidders and having entered into a contract with the first respondent alone are entitled for plying taxies in the Aerodrome and no other person can claim any right over plying of taxies in the Aerodrome premises. 15. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have rights by having valid permits issued by the first respondent and it is not denied by them that they are enjoying their rights in plying taxies. It is the persistent stand of the first respondent as well as the second respondent that the petitioners relinquished their rights by selling their permits to third parties. In the absence of any permit to operate taxies and as the petitioners surrendered their rights to third parties so as to enable the third parties to become the members of the Association, they have got no manner of right to seek such a blanket direction to prevent the respondents from plying taxies in the first respondent premises. 16. Therefore, in my considered view, this Court does not find any reason in granting such a direction to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the rights of the petitioners to ply taxies in the absence of any valid permits in their possession and there is no proof shown by the petitioners that they are the members of the second respondent Association having participated in the tender to ply taxies. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the basis of devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.