2008 (8) TMI 990 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the circular issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 29-5-2008.
2. Challenge to the interim order issued by the DGCA on 2-6-2008.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed.
4. Competence and jurisdiction of the DGCA to issue the circular and interim order.
5. Revival of AIC 28 of 1992 after suspension of CAR dated 27-7-2007.
6. Impact on public safety and interests of pilots.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Propriety of the Circular Issued by DGCA on 29-5-2008:
The petitioners challenged the circular dated 29-5-2008 issued by the DGCA, which kept the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dated 27-7-2007 in abeyance. The circular was claimed to be issued in violation of the guidelines for issuing Civil Aviation Requirements and revisions thereof. The petitioners argued that the circular was neither displayed on the DGCA website nor circulated to the affected persons, and no objections or suggestions were obtained, making it illegal and unauthorized. The court found that the DGCA, as a statutory authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, had the power to issue such circulars under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The court held that the circular was issued as an interim measure pending the examination and report by a committee appointed by the government, and it was not illegal or unauthorized.

2. Challenge to the Interim Order Issued by DGCA on 2-6-2008:
The petitioners contended that the letter dated 2-6-2008, which clarified that the earlier instructions/guidelines on crew Flight Duty Time Limitations (FDTL) as contained in AIC 28 of 1992 would be effective, was not challenged in the petition. The court held that the petitioners consciously chose not to challenge the letter dated 2-6-2008, as evident from the grounds of challenge in the petition. The court found that the letter dated 2-6-2008 was issued to address the void created by the suspension of CAR dated 27-7-2007 and was within the powers of the DGCA under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules. The court held that the petitioners could not challenge the letter dated 2-6-2008 merely by oral arguments without laying proper foundation and raising specific grounds in the petition.

3. Whether the Principles of Natural Justice Were Followed:
The petitioners argued that the principles of natural justice were not followed in issuing the circular dated 29-5-2008 and the letter dated 2-6-2008. The court held that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the interim measures taken by the DGCA. The court noted that the suspension of CAR dated 27-7-2007 created a void, and the DGCA had to take appropriate decisions to avoid confusion and chaos. The court found that the interim measures were taken in public interest and did not violate the principles of natural justice.

4. Competence and Jurisdiction of the DGCA to Issue the Circular and Interim Order:
The petitioners contended that the DGCA had no jurisdiction to issue the circular dated 29-5-2008 and the letter dated 2-6-2008. The court held that the DGCA, as a statutory authority under the Aircraft Act, 1934, had the power to issue such circulars and orders under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The court found that the circular and the letter were issued by the competent authority and were within the jurisdiction of the DGCA.

5. Revival of AIC 28 of 1992 After Suspension of CAR Dated 27-7-2007:
The petitioners argued that the suspension of CAR dated 27-7-2007 did not automatically revive AIC 28 of 1992. The court held that the letter dated 2-6-2008 specifically revived AIC 28 of 1992, and it was not a case of automatic revival. The court found that the DGCA had the power to revive AIC 28 of 1992 under Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and the revival was done to address the void created by the suspension of CAR dated 27-7-2007.

6. Impact on Public Safety and Interests of Pilots:
The petitioners contended that the circular dated 29-5-2008 and the letter dated 2-6-2008 were issued under pressure from airline operators to cut down expenses and maximize profits, compromising air safety and exploiting the crew. The court found that the DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation took the decision to suspend CAR dated 27-7-2007 and revive AIC 28 of 1992 after considering various factors, including public safety, interests of pilots, and operational concerns of airlines. The court held that the decision was taken in public interest and did not compromise air safety.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners. The court held that the DGCA had the authority and jurisdiction to issue the circular dated 29-5-2008 and the letter dated 2-6-2008, and the interim measures were taken in public interest without violating the principles of natural justice. The court found that the revival of AIC 28 of 1992 was done through a specific order and was within the powers of the DGCA. The petition was dismissed with costs.