Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi, JJ.
DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. ..Appellant
Versus
INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPN. & OTHERS ..Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2932 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27062/2013
Decided On : 17-03-2015
(2009) 15 SCC 705; (1968) 1 SCR 111 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Articles 77 and 166 – Rules of business – Rules 3 and 4 – Executive powers – Orders required to be issued in the name of the President or the Governor – No provision for delegation of power. (Para 18, 19)
(1991) 4 SCC 243; (1996) 2 SCC 26 – Relied upon
(c) Rules of Business – Rules 3 and 4 – Decision dated 26.3.2013 – Decision involving various stake holders and having financial implications – Neither sanctified by Cabinet nor concurred by Finance Department – Minutes of the meeting not a general or special order in writing by the Central Government – Does not have force of law – Not enforceable. (Para 22, 24, 25)
(2010) 11 SCC 374 – Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India – Article 77(3) and 226 – Meeting dated 26.3.2013 – Not resulting in a final decision taken and communicated by competent authority – Cannot be enforced by issuing a direction in a writ petition. (Para 28)
(1973) 3 SCC 889 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant is Delhi International Airport Limited, a joint venture and public partnership between GMR companies, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Fraport Germany and Eraman Malaysia. Appellant has been granted aerodrome licence by Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 1.5.2008 and is a competent authority with respect to Delhi Airport responsible for upgradation, maintenance and operation of Delhi Airport. Appellant has been conferred power under Section 22(i)(a) of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 to charge fees, rent etc. for the landing, housing or parking of aircraft. Respondent No.1 is a leasing company incorporated under laws of California, U.S.A, engaged in the business of leasing of aircrafts engines and related equipment.
The scheduled airline licence of the Kingfisher Airlines (KAL) was suspended due to non-payment of the parking, landing and housing charges in respect of the aircraft leased to KAL by respondent No.1. These 8 aircrafts were detained at Delhi Airport and subsequently got de- registered on 27.12.2012. These charges (amounting to a total of Rs.10,50,51,052.77 for all eight detained aircraft) and other statutory charges and dues (amounting to Rs.12,64,08,706.57 for all eight detained aircraft) attach to the aircraft and have to be discharged by the person in control of the aircraft as under Regulation 10. Other aircrafts of KAL lying at various airports also got detained at different airports due to non-payment of charges and subsequently deregistered.
Assailing the order of detention of the aircrafts belonging to respondent No.1 by Delhi International Airport Limited, Airport Authority of India and Mumbai International Airport Limited and challenging vires of Regulation 10 of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003, respondent No.1 filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
During pendency of the writ petition, on 26.3.2013 a meeting was held regarding release of the aircrafts of respondent No.8 by the airport operators.
High Court directed all the airports to release the aircrafts on payment of parking charges up to 13.5.2013.
Finding of the Court:
High Court was not right in disposing of the matter in terms of the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7767/2012, wherein the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1. The issue falling for consideration is whether minutes of meeting can override statutory regulations.
3. The appellant is Delhi International Airport Limited, a joint venture and public partnership between GMR companies, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Fraport Germany and Eraman Malaysia. Appellant has been granted aerodrome licence by Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) on 1.5.2008 and is a competent authority with respect to Delhi Airport responsible for upgradation, maintenance and operation of Delhi Airport. Appellant has been conferred power under Section 22(i)(a) of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 (short for 'AAI Act') to charge fees, rent etc. for the landing, housing or parking of aircraft. Respondent No.1 is a leasing company incorporated under laws of California, U.S.A, engaged in the business of leasing of aircrafts engines and related equipment.
4. Kingfisher Airlines (KAL) had been operating commercial airlines and unable to pay dues of various authorities. The scheduled airline licence of the 8th respondent-Kingfisher Airlines (KAL) was suspended due to non-payment of the parking, landing and housing charges in respect of the aircraft bearing registration No.VT-KFT which was previously registered to Kingfisher Airlines Limited (KAL) and leased to KAL by respondent No.1 were detained at Delhi Airport and subsequently got de- registered on 27.12.2012. Section 22 of the AAI Act provides for levy of landing, housing and parking charges at the Airport. These charges (amounting to a total of Rs.10,50,51,052.77 for all eight detained aircraft) and other statutory charges and dues (amounting to Rs.12,64,08,706.57 for all eight detained aircraft) attach to the aircraft and have to be discharged by the person in control of the aircraft is under Regulation 10. Other aircrafts of KAL lying at various airports also got detained at different airports due to non-payment of charges and subsequently deregistered.
5. Assailing the order of detention of the aircrafts belonging to respondent No.1 by Delhi International Airport Limited (short for 'DIAL'), Airport Authority of India (short for 'AAI') and Mumbai International Airport Limited (short for 'MIAL') and challenging vires Regulation 10 of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003, respondent No.1 filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
6. During pendency of the writ petition, on 26.3.2013 a meeting was held regarding release of the aircrafts of respondent No.8 by the airport operators. The participants in the meeting included representatives of (a) Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA), (b) Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), (c) Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), (d) Airports Authority of India (AAI), (e) Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (DIAL), (f) Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (MIAL). After detailed discussions various decisions were made. It was inter- alia decided that:-
"(i) DGCA shall, henceforth, seek views of concerned airport operators prior to deregistration of remaining KFA aircraft;
(ii) CBEC and DGCA shall reconcile list of remaining KFA aircraft registered with DGCA so as to confirm whether these aircrafts are purely under financial/operating lease or some of them are jointly owned by Lessor and KFA;
(iii) The concerned airport operators shall release all the de-registered aircraft to the respective owners/lessors immediately so that these aircrafts can fly out of the country. They are at liberty to collect parking charges from the owners/lessors from the date of de-registration.
In case any of these deregistered aircrafts are subject matter of any court case between the owners/lessors and the airport operator, then the
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
