9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 868 - SC - Indian LawsWhether order dated 29.5.2008, keeping the CAR 2007 in abeyance could be passed without following the procedure prescribed in CAR dated 13.10.2006? Held that - The High Court has observed that in the instant case, the reviving of AIC 28/92 is in question, even the keeping in abeyance of the CAR, whether by the DGCA or other competent authority, is in issue. However, it is merely an interregnum arrangement till the new CAR comes into picture. The High Court held that DGCA is directly under the control of Civil Aviation Ministry and considering the rules of business, the Government being the appropriate authority to formulate necessary policy in relation to the subject matter in issue, and the Government in its wisdom having decided after taking into consideration all the representations made from various sections, has appointed a Committee to formulate CAR in relation to the matters enumerated under order dated 29.5.2008, and on that count, the DGCA in exercise of its power under Rule 133A r/w Rule 29C of the Rules 1937 issued the Circular dated 29.5.2008, and therefore, no fault can be found with the same. Being so, we are in agreement with the finding recorded by the High Court that even assuming that there is a challenge to the communication dated 2.6.2008 in the petition, the same is to be considered as devoid of substance as undisputedly, the DGCA has ample power to issue such instructions or directions in exercise of its power under the Rule 133A r/w Rule 29C of the Rules 1937. Since, the appellants have not been able to point out any provision even for issuance of instructions for such interregnum period, the provisions of CAR of 13.10.2006 would be attracted in the matter. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Circular dated 29.5.2008 issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). 2. Competence of the authority issuing the Circular. 3. Revival of Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) 28/92. 4. Suspension of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) 2007. 5. Compliance with the procedure for issuing and suspending CAR. 6. Applicability of the principles of natural justice. 7. Judicial scrutiny of public policy decisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Circular dated 29.5.2008 issued by the DGCA: The appellants challenged the Circular dated 29.5.2008, which kept the CAR 2007 in abeyance, arguing that the CAR 2007 could not be suspended without following the prescribed procedure. The High Court rejected this argument, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the CAR 2007 is an executive instruction, not a statute or subordinate legislation. Therefore, it can be altered, replaced, or suspended by the competent authority. 2. Competence of the authority issuing the Circular: The appellants argued that the DGCA issued the Circular under instructions from an authority that did not have the competence to interfere with the DGCA's functions. The Supreme Court noted that the DGCA is empowered to issue special directions under the Aircraft Act, 1934, and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The DGCA's involvement in the process, even with consultations from other authorities, was within its competence. The Ministry of Civil Aviation, being concerned with safety measures, had a role in the process. 3. Revival of Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) 28/92: The appellants contended that once AIC 28/92 was obliterated, its revival upon the suspension of CAR 2007 was not permissible. The Supreme Court held that the revival of AIC 28/92 was a specific order by the competent authority and was necessary to fill the vacuum created by the suspension of CAR 2007. The AIC 28/92, being executive instructions, could be revived as an interim measure. 4. Suspension of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) 2007: The appellants argued that the suspension of CAR 2007 was done without following the procedure prescribed in CAR dated 13.10.2006. The Supreme Court noted that exceptional circumstances might permit the statutory authority to put subordinate legislation in abeyance. The suspension of CAR 2007 was an interim measure until a new CAR could be formulated. 5. Compliance with the procedure for issuing and suspending CAR: The Supreme Court emphasized that executive instructions like CAR 2007 are binding but can be altered or suspended by the competent authority. The DGCA followed the procedure outlined in CAR 13.10.2006, which allows for revisions and the issuance of new CARs after inviting objections and suggestions from affected persons. 6. Applicability of the principles of natural justice: The appellants claimed that the Circular dated 29.5.2008 violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the suspension of CAR 2007 and the revival of AIC 28/92 were interim measures, and the principles of natural justice did not apply in this context. 7. Judicial scrutiny of public policy decisions: The Supreme Court noted that public authorities must be given freedom in framing policies, and judicial scrutiny is limited to exceptional circumstances where decisions are arbitrary, unreasonable, or violate statutory provisions. The process to bring a new CAR into existence was already underway, and the court found no reason to interfere with the policy decisions made by the competent authorities. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the Circular dated 29.5.2008, the competence of the DGCA in issuing the Circular, and the revival of AIC 28/92 as an interim measure. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial scrutiny in public policy decisions and directed the expeditious conclusion of the process to bring a new CAR into existence.
|
