Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
Yeshwanth Shenoy – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Others – Respondent
Public Interest Litigation No. 86 of 2014 with Notice of Motion (L) Nos. 88 of 2017, 143 of 2017, 189 of 2017, 223 of 2017, 240 of 2017, 440 of 2017, 481 of 2017, 511 of 2016, 556 of 2017, 8 of 2018 with Review Petition (L) No. 1 of 2017, 2 of 2017 with Writ Petition No. 3078 of 2017
Decided On : 06-04-2018
For the Petitioner:Yeshwanth Shenoy, Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr. Cl a/w Somya Shrikrishna, Ayush Khandelwal, Rati Lodha, Ursula Misquitta i/by Lodha Legal, Ram Mani Upadhyay, S. Mangala, Tanvi Kulkarni i/by Ganesh & Co., Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Ayush Khandelwal, Rati Lodha, Ursula Misquitta i/by Lodha Legal, Amol Mhatre a/w Asha Nair i/by Diamondwala & Co., Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Asha Nair i/by Diamondwala & Co., Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Asha Nair i/by Diamondwala & Co., Advocates
For the Respondents:Dushyant Kumar, Anil Singh, A.S.G a/w Shilpa Kapil, Chidanand Kapil, Raghava M, Farid Karachiwala a/w Sneh Mehta, Mahek Chheda i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co., Rahul Sinha I/by DSK Legal, Advocates, S.K. Jinde, Deputy General Manager (Legal), Airport Authority of India
Headnote:
Airport Authority of India - technology employment - Aircraft Act, 1934 - Section 9A - Airport Authority of India Standing Order 84(E) - Some time was taken only to enable Registry to compile entire record in PIL for number of applications and proceedings were filed in PIL and independently - All were taken together - They were also heard together - In circumstances Registry took some time to compile papers and after which matters are placed for dictation in open Court today - Court had intimated to petitioner applicant by way of an email and Registry official informs that is unable to remain present today - However during course of arguments court had indicated to him that no prejudice would be caused for court are not forming any final opinion on challenge to particularly now in place Rules - If there is provision made in Rules or Rules themselves deal with situation where buildings in vicinity and particularly within prohibited zone are purported to be regulated then it will be entirely for petitioner or such other public spirited citizens to take up larger issue and that is kept open by us – Held, Perusal this Rule would indicate that Appellate Committee consists of Joint Secretary Airport Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India who is chairperson and other senior functionaries - There is also technical expert having knowledge in field communication or air traffic management as member of this Committee - Committee receives and processes cases forwarded for its reference at headquarters of AAI at New Delhi - It is stated that this Committee ordinarily and normally meets on last Thursday of every month and as far as this month is concerned it is likely to meet on April - In our view therefore PIL petitioner or intervener or such other public spirited citizens who are intending to challenge legality and validity of Rules have enough time at their disposal to move competent Court and in appropriate proceedings - Court do not intend to continue embargo or prohibition placed by this Court on Appellate Committee particularly restraint on passing final orders indefinitely - Let Appellate Committee if at all it is to meet on April meet and take up cases if at all they are placed before it consider them strictly in accordance with Rules and pass final orders - Court do not think all this can happen in single day as apprehended and before scheduled hearing aggrieved parties like move competent Court - Court do not think it appropriate and proper to place restraint on Committees functioning and its power any further - Interim order passed in PIL stands vacated with above modifications observations - Court direct that following proceedings which were either placed along with PIL or individually or independently also stand disposed of with similar orders and directions with regard to aeronautical study survey provision of copies of aeronautical study survey and conduct of proceedings before Appellate Committee – Order accordingly
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. This PIL and the connected matters were heard together extensively. We did reserve the order, but we indicated to the parties in open Court that we would determine the date and time so that the orders are dictated in the presence of the parties in open Court.
2. Some time was taken only to enable the Registry to compile the entire record in the PIL for number of applications and proceedings were filed in the PIL and independently. All were taken together. They were also heard together. In the circumstances, the Registry took some time to compile the papers and after which the matters are placed for dictation in open Court today.
3. We had intimated to the petitioner-applicant Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy by way of an email and the Registry official informs that Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy is unable to remain present today. However, during the course of arguments, we had indicated to him that no prejudice would be caused for we are not forming any final opinion on the challenge to, particularly now in place, the Rules. If there is a provision made in the Rules or the Rules themselves deal with the situation where the buildings in the vicinity, and particularly within the prohibited zone, are purported to be regulated, then it will be entirely for the petitioner or such other public spirited citizens to take up the larger issue and that is kept open by us.
4. Since we indicated that the PIL contain an essential prayer of a direction directing respondent no.3 – Director General of Civil Aviation to ensure demolition, as per the Aircraft (Demolition of obstructions caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994, of all the buildings/hoardings/trees which have heights more than what is permissible under the Airport Authority of India Standing Order 84(E) and DGCA CAR Series 'B', Section 4, but there is an affidavit which now indicates that there are Rules.
5. We would advert to this aspect a little later. There are other prayers also and particularly prayer clauses (b) and (c) regarding which it is not necessary to express any opinion.
6. We are of the view that the eventual order that we pass would not prejudice the interest of the petitioner or any other public spirited citizen.
7. At the outset, we must also indicate that the petitioner-applicant filed applications seeking recusal of one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) from the proceedings. On the earlier occasion, after one such application was rejected, he participated in the hearing and canvassed his submissions and concluded them. Equally, the contesting parties were also heard by us.
8. The PIL is filed by the petitioner enrolled as an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala. He has been enrolled as an advocate in 2001. He possesses a Masters Degree in Law from Mumbai University and Turin University (Italy). He is also a Ph.D. Student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. He has highlighted his achievements being instrumental in filing several PILs.
9. The 1st respondent is Union of India through the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The 2nd respondent is the Airport Authority of India. The 3rd respondent is the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. The 4th respondent is the Mumbai International Airport Limited and presently managing the Mumbai International Airport. The 5th respondent, who was later on deleted, is an employee of the Airport Authority of India. The 6th respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
10. The petitioner-applicant says that this PIL became necessary because the petitioner, although an ordinary traveler, was also concerned with safety of passengers at two airports, viz. Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport and Juhu Airport at Mumbai. He says that in order to protect the flight paths of aircraft landing/taking off at all civil airports in the country, the heights of buildings/structures within a radius of 20 km. around the airport is regulated. The 2nd respondent is entrusted with the import
