Back
2011 (3) Supreme 621
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
The Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots Associations of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
The Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No3844 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.27814 of 2008)
Decided on : 3-5-2011
AIR 1993 SC 352; (1998) 6 SCC 358; (1998) 6 SCC 507; (2010) 10 SCC 422 – Relied upon
(b) Judicial Review – Promulgating subordinate legislation or keeping it in abeyance is legislative function – Even an executive order putting such legislation in abeyance (which the executive may do in exceptional circumstances) is not warranted to be interfered by the Court/Tribunal. (Para 17)
(2000) 9 SCC 299 – Relied upon
(c) Interpretation of statutes – Executive instruction can supplement a statute or cover areas, to which the statute does not extend, but it cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect – Such instructions are binding on the officials. (Paras 18, 19 and 22)
(1992) supp. 1 SCC 150; AIR 2002 SC 1450; AIR 1967 SC 1910; AIR 1994 SC 2316 – Relied upon
(d) Interpretation of Statutes – Once the old rule has been substituted by the new rule, it stands obliterated and ceases to exist – Under no circumstance can it be revived – However in case a statutory amendment by the Legislature is held to be bad for want of legislative competence the repealed statutory provisions would revive automatically. (Para 23)
JT (2010) 13 SC 610; AIR 1963 SC 928; AIR 1965 SC 1430; AIR 1986 SC 515; AIR 2002 SC 948; (2004) 8 SCC 1; (2009) 8 SCC 46 – Relied upon
(e) Judicial Review – AIC 28/92 revived by specific instructions necessitated by suspension of CAR 2007 by competent authority – Being interim measure, principles of natural justice were not required to be followed. (Para 24)
(f) Natural Justice – A decision taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play – Would be patently illegal – However DGCA being involved in the process of consultation as per rules of business was competent to issue circular dated 29.5.2008 – More so it is interim order till CAR if finalized – Interference not warranted. (Para 26, 28 )
AIR 1970 SC 1896; AIR 1984 SC 322; AIR 2001 SC 2524; AIR 2010 SC 2210; AIR 1952 SC 16; AIR 2004 SC 1159; AIR 2008 SC 1888 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1. The appellants are the Joint Action Committees of the Airlines Pilots Association. The dispute relates to the Flight Time (FT) and Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL), as there is some variance between the Aeronautical Information Circular No.28/92 and the CAR 2007.
2. Vide AIC 28/92, FT and FDTL had been defined and fixed depending upon the distance of destination and number of landings. The rest period for the pilots stood substantially changed by the CAR 2007 to the greater benefit of the pilots.
3. However, a large number of representations had been made by the airlines to the DGCA and the Central Government, to the effect that it was practically not possible for them to ensure compliance of CAR 2007 and thus, the same was kept in abeyance. By a subsequent order dated 2.6.2008, the AIC 28/92 was revived.
4. Appellants challenged the Circular dated 29.5.2008 before the High Court which did not accept the submissions of the appellants, rather rejected the same in an elaborate judgment.
Finding of the Court:
CAR is merely executive instruction. It is not subordinate legislation.
In absence of any challenge to circular dared 2.6.2008 question of examining competency of the authority issuing the same does not arise, more so because it is not a subordinate legislation.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1687 of 2008, wherein the appellants had challenged the validity and propriety of a Circular issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, (hereinafter called as ‘DGCA’), respondent No.1 dated 29.5.2008, to the effect that Civil Aviation Requirements (hereinafter called as the ‘CAR’) dated 27.7.2007 had been kept in abeyance.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellants are the Joint Action Committees of the Airlines Pilots Association representing several airlines operating in India. The dispute relates to the Flight Time (FT) and Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL), as there is some variance between the Aeronautical Information Circular (hereinafter called as ‘AIC’) No.28/92 and the CAR 2007. Vide AIC 28/92, FT and FDTL had been defined and fixed depending upon the distance of destination and number of landings. The rest period for the pilots stood substantially changed by the CAR 2007 to the greater benefit of the pilots. However, a large number of representations had been made by the airlines to the DGCA and the Central Government, respondents herein, to the effect that it was practically not possible for them to ensure compliance of CAR 2007 and thus, the same was kept in abeyance. By a subsequent order dated 2.6.2008, the AIC 28/92 was revived.
4. Appellants challenged the Circular dated 29.5.2008 before the High Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that even if CAR 2007 is kept in abeyance, the AIC 28/92, which stood obliterated, could not be revived; the CAR 2007 had been kept in abeyance by the order of the Authority, which did not have the competence to interfere in the functioning of the DGCA, respondent No. 1. The statutory authority i.e. DGCA alone is competent to pass the appropriate order in the matter. The Circular dated 29.5.2008 has seriously jeopardised the safety of passengers and the same was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the High Court did not accept the submissions of the appellants, rather rejected the same in an elaborate judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has agitated all the issues raised before the High Court. Once AIC 28/92 stood obliterated, the question of its revival/application/enforcement on putting the CAR 2007 in abeyance could not arise. More so, the orders by the DGCA make it abundantly clear that the same had been passed on instructions from the competent authority. The order stood vitiated as the same had not been passed by the DGCA on its own. Law does not permit the keeping of the subordinate legislation in abeyance without following the procedure, prescribed for its enactment. The Circular dated 29.5.2008 had been issued in violation of the guidelines stipulated for issuance of the CAR. The judgment and order impugned herein is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. On the contrary, Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned ASG, Shri C.U. Singh and Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, have submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court was not maintainable as none of the necessary parties had been impleaded therein. However, the respondents, i.e. the airlines got themselves impleaded in the petition. The AIC and CAR fall within the category of executive instructions which simply provide the guidelines for persons working in the department. The said administrative instructions do not have any statutory force and thus can be kept in abeyance, altered or replaced by another executive instructions. Some of the appellants themselves challenged the CAR dated 27.7.2007 by filing Writ Petition No.2176 of 2007 on the grounds that the said CAR revea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
