2011 (3) TMI 1713 - HC - Indian Laws

Court validates circulars & regulations, deems them lawful for national security. Writ petition dismissed.

The court upheld the validity of the circulars and 2007 Regulations, deeming them consistent with statutory and constitutional provisions. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of circulars issued by the DGCA under Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934.2. Compatibility of the circulars with Rule 92 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.3. Legitimacy of the restrictions imposed by the circulars under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.4. Impact on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.5. Alleged discrimination between private airlines and other entities.6. Conflict between the 2007 Regulations and Rule 134 read with Schedule XI of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.7. Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Circulars Issued by DGCA under Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934:The court examined whether the circulars issued by the DGCA under Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934, were within the scope of the authority conferred by the Act. The court held that Section 5A, read in conjunction with other relevant provisions, empowers the DGCA to issue directions in the interest of security and safety of aircraft operations. The court emphasized that the words 'in any case' in Section 5A should be interpreted broadly to cover all categories of cases where security or safety is involved. The circulars were deemed consistent with the provisions of the Act and necessary for ensuring security.2. Compatibility of Circulars with Rule 92 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937:The petitioners argued that the circulars were in conflict with Rule 92, which allows airline operators to engage any ground handling service provider permitted by the Central Government. The court clarified that Rule 92 does not confer an absolute right on airline operators for self-ground handling. Instead, it mandates a competitive environment and security clearance. The circulars were found to ensure a competitive environment and were thus consistent with Rule 92.3. Legitimacy of Restrictions under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:The court held that the restrictions imposed by the circulars were reasonable and in the interest of national security, which is a legitimate ground for imposing restrictions under Article 19(6). The court also found that the classification made by the circulars between different entities was based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring security and efficiency in ground handling services. Therefore, the circulars did not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:The petitioners contended that the circulars violated their legitimate expectation to continue providing self-ground handling services. The court held that while the doctrine of legitimate expectation is recognized, it is subject to change in policy, especially when such change is justified by public interest and security concerns. The court found that the change in policy was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and thus did not violate the doctrine of legitimate expectation.5. Alleged Discrimination:The petitioners argued that the circulars discriminated against private airlines by allowing only certain entities to provide ground handling services. The court found that the classification was reasonable and based on security considerations. The petitioners were not debarred from forming joint ventures to provide ground handling services, ensuring a level playing field.6. Conflict with Rule 134 and Schedule XI:The petitioners argued that the 2007 Regulations conflicted with Rule 134 and Schedule XI, which set conditions for granting permits to operate scheduled air transport services. The court clarified that Rule 134 and Schedule XI do not confer an inalienable right to provide ground handling services. The 2007 Regulations, issued under Section 42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, were found to be consistent with the overarching need for security and did not conflict with Rule 134.7. Delay and Laches:The court rejected the argument that the writ petition should be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The court noted that the petitioners had been consistently representing their concerns to the authorities, and the implementation of the circulars had been deferred multiple times. Given the continuous engagement and the substantive issues involved, the court decided to hear the petition on merits.Conclusion:The court upheld the validity of the circulars and the 2007 Regulations, finding them consistent with the statutory framework and constitutional provisions. The restrictions imposed were deemed reasonable and necessary for ensuring national security and efficient ground handling operations. The writ petition and all interim applications were dismissed.