https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189976 Delay and laches did not defeat the writ challenge because the policy had been kept in abeyance and modified, so the matter was heard on merits. The Delhi High Court construed Section 5A of the Aircraft Act broadly to permit security- and safety-based directions, and held that Rule 92 did not confer an indefeasible right of airline self-handling. It further found that the restriction on self-ground handling was a reasonable measure in the public interest and national security, with intelligible classification, and therefore not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). The Court also held that no vested right or legitimate expectation arose from earlier practice, and there was no conflict with Rule 134 or Schedule XI. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:58:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189976 Delay and laches did not defeat the writ challenge because the policy had been kept in abeyance and modified, so the matter was heard on merits. The Delhi High Court construed Section 5A of the Aircraft Act broadly to permit security- and safety-based directions, and held that Rule 92 did not confer an indefeasible right of airline self-handling. It further found that the restriction on self-ground handling was a reasonable measure in the public interest and national security, with intelligible classification, and therefore not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). The Court also held that no vested right or legitimate expectation arose from earlier practice, and there was no conflict with Rule 134 or Schedule XI. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189976