Aviation regulatory power permits interim circulars and temporary revival of prior requirements to prevent a regulatory vacuum.

A competent aviation regulatory authority may issue directions, circulars and Civil Aviation Requirements that are consistent with the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937, including interim policy measures to suspend an earlier requirement and prevent a regulatory vacuum. Where an interim arrangement is adopted in public interest to avoid confusion and keep the prior regime operative pending reconsideration, the procedures meant for promulgation or revision of a new requirement need not apply. The material also states that prior hearing or objection procedures are not required for such a temporary measure, and that the arrangement may be expressly made effective by the authority rather than reviving automatically.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Director General of Civil Aviation had statutory authority to suspend the earlier Civil Aviation Requirements and issue the impugned circular and clarificatory order. (ii) Whether the revival of the earlier Aeronautical Information Circular and the interim arrangement could be invalidated for want of compliance with the prescribed procedure or principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the Director General of Civil Aviation had statutory authority to suspend the earlier Civil Aviation Requirements and issue the impugned circular and clarificatory order.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the Director General of Civil Aviation to issue directions, circulars and Civil Aviation Requirements not inconsistent with the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The impugned circular was issued as a policy measure pending reconsideration of flight duty time limitations, and the authority's action was held to be within the scope of the enabling provisions. The Court also held that the challenge was directed essentially to the circular dated 29 May 2008, and the subsequent communication dated 2 June 2008 formed an interregnum arrangement made to avoid a regulatory vacuum.

Conclusion: The Director General of Civil Aviation had the requisite statutory authority, and the challenge on lack of jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the revival of the earlier Aeronautical Information Circular and the interim arrangement could be invalidated for want of compliance with the prescribed procedure or principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The Court held that the procedure governing promulgation or revision of Civil Aviation Requirements was not attracted to an interim arrangement made to meet the immediate consequences of suspending the later requirements. It further held that the earlier circular was not said to revive automatically, but was expressly made effective by the competent authority. As the measure was interim in nature and adopted in public interest to prevent confusion and a regulatory void, the requirement of prior hearing or objection procedure was not applied.

Conclusion: The challenge based on alleged procedural non-compliance and violation of natural justice was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned circular and consequential arrangement were sustained as lawful interim regulatory measures, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A competent aviation regulatory authority may, in exercise of statutory power, issue an interim policy direction to suspend an earlier regulatory instrument and make the prior regime operative again to prevent a regulatory vacuum, without following revision procedures meant for promulgation of a new or revised requirement, where the measure is not inconsistent with the parent Act and Rules and is taken in public interest.

---