Back
Dismisses PIL Against Visakhapatnam Airport Closure, Citing
The on Wednesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the 30-year suspension of commercial flight operations at Visakhapatnam Airport, directing the petitioner to approach the instead. A division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the plea on the ground of , holding that the lay in Visakhapatnam, where the closure’s impact was most acutely felt.
The court’s ruling underscores a key procedural principle in Indian civil litigation: when parts of a arise in multiple jurisdictions, the forum where the predominant harm occurs is the appropriate venue. This decision also highlights the reluctance of high courts to entertain PILs that could be more effectively adjudicated in the territorial jurisdiction most affected by the impugned action.
The Background: A 30-Year Airport Shutdown
Scheduled commercial operations at Visakhapatnam Airport (IATA code: VTZ) ceased on , following the departure of the last flight—IndiGo 6E 2018 to Delhi. The closure paved the way for the inauguration of the Alluri Sitarama Raju International Airport at Bhogapuram, located approximately 60 kilometres from the city centre. On , the notified that all scheduled commercial operations at the old airport would be suspended for a period of 30 years, a decision that prompted the PIL.
The petitioner, Gopala Krishna Kosaraju, argued that while the development of new infrastructure at Bhogapuram was welcome, the absolute ban on an existing, fully functional, and centrally located public airport was arbitrary and unreasonable. He contended that the had invested over ₹250 crore in upgrading the Vizag terminal and airside infrastructure in recent years, and rendering that asset idle for three decades violated the .
The Court’s Reasoning: Where Does the Harm Lie?
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel urged the bench to call for a response from the authorities, asserting that the decision to close the airport was taken in Delhi. The court, however, was unimpressed. “Where is the order impacting people? When parts of the are in two high courts, it is the dominant high court which determines the forum. The is in Visakhapatnam. File it there,” the bench observed.
The court further noted that a similar PIL on the same issue was already pending before the . Dismissing the petition on the ground of , the bench remarked, “Suffering was of people of Visakhapatnam, not Delhi.” The order effectively shuts the door on the petitioner’s attempt to litigate in the national capital and reinforces the principle that PILs should be brought in the jurisdiction where the alleged grievance predominantly arises.
Legal Analysis: The Doctrine of
The doctrine of (Latin for “inconvenient forum”) allows a court to decline jurisdiction if another court is better suited to hear the case. In Indian jurisprudence, this principle is often applied in civil disputes and PILs to prevent and ensure efficient administration of justice. The has consistently held that when multiple courts have jurisdiction, the court where the “dominant” or “real” arises should entertain the matter.
In this case, the applied the doctrine pragmatically. Although the initial decision to close the airport was taken by the in Delhi, the actual impact—disruption of air travel, economic consequences, and public inconvenience—is concentrated in Visakhapatnam. The court reasoned that the local high court would be better placed to assess local conditions, hear affected parties, and examine the administrative decisions taken by state authorities.
The ruling also aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance in and , where the apex court emphasised that the “” must be examined holistically, and that a mere decision-making situs does not confer jurisdiction if the substantial part of the grievance lies elsewhere.
Implications for Public Interest Litigation
This decision carries significant implications for practitioners filing PILs before high courts. It reiterates that the choice of forum cannot be driven solely by convenience or perceived judicial proactiveness; the court will scrutinise the geographical nexus between the grievance and the relief sought. For litigants and lawyers, the case underscores the importance of identifying the “dominant” before filing, especially when the impugned action involves multiple stakeholders across different states.
The court’s observation that a similar PIL was already pending before the also highlights the risk of parallel proceedings. The dismissal on prevents duplication of litigation and encourages consolidation of issues in the most appropriate forum.
The Argument
One of the most compelling arguments raised by the petitioner was the alleged violation of the . This doctrine, rooted in Roman and English common law, holds that certain natural and public resources—such as airports, parks, and waterways—are held by the government in trust for the people and cannot be arbitrarily alienated or rendered useless. The petitioner claimed that shutting down a fully functional airport for 30 years to guarantee commercial exclusivity to a private operator at Bhogapuram amounted to a breach of this trust.
While the did not rule on the merits of this argument, the issue remains alive for the to consider. The application of the to aviation infrastructure is a relatively novel area in Indian law, and a substantive adjudication could have far-reaching consequences for public-private partnerships in the sector.
What Lies Ahead
The petitioner now has the option to approach the , where the similar PIL is already listed. That court will have the opportunity to examine the factual matrix more closely, including the economic viability of maintaining two airports, the terms of the concession agreement with the private operator at Bhogapuram, and the proportionality of a 30-year ban.
For the legal community, the ’s ruling serves as a crisp reminder of the procedural gatekeeping role that high courts play in PILs. It also reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is not a mere technicality but a substantive safeguard against forum abuse. As the case moves to its natural forum in Andhra Pradesh, all eyes will be on whether the can be successfully invoked to challenge a government’s long-term infrastructure policy.
In the interim, Visakhapatnam’s residents face a two-hour drive to Bhogapuram for commercial flights, a logistical shift that the deemed best assessed by their own high court. The procedural battle may be over, but the substantive legal contest is far from settled.
