SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Riptinder Jit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Air India Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10077 of 2019 & CM APPL. 41694 of 2019, W.P.(C) 11339 of 2019 & CM APPL. 46667 of 2019, 18246 of 2020, W.P.(C) 13384/2019 & CM APPL. 54317/2019, 2293/2020, W.P.(C) 2309/2020 & CM APPL. 8026/2020,W.P.(C) 8527/2022, W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 8528/2022, 8527/2022, W.P.(C) 8528/2022, W.P.(C) 8543/2022, W.P.(C) 8545/2022, W.P.(C) 8547/2022, W.P.(C) 8557/2022, W.P.(C) 8564/2022, W.P.(C) 8565/2022, W.P.(C) 8220/2022 & CM APPL. 24827/2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vivek Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nalin Talwar, Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Ms. Yeshi Rinchhen, Mr. Akash Yadav and Mr. Juvas Rawal, Advocates, for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 10077 of 2019 & CM APPL. 41694 of 2019, W.P.(C) 11339 of 2019 & CM APPL. 46667 of 2019, 18246 of 2020, W.P.(C) 13384/2019 & CM APPL. 54317/2019, 2293/2020, W.P.(C) 2309/2020 & CM APPL. 8026/2020,W.P.(C) 8527/2022, W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 8528/2022, 8527/2022, W.P.(C) 8528/2022, W.P.(C) 8543/2022, W.P.(C) 8545/2022, W.P.(C) 8547/2022, W.P.(C) 8557/2022, W.P.(C) 8564/2022, W.P.(C) 8565/2022, W.P.(C) 8220/2022 & CM APPL. 24827/2022.
Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Shivam Chanana and Mr. Advaya Hari Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent in W.P.(C) 10077 of 2019 & CM APPL. 41694 of 2019, W.P.(C) 11339 of 2019 & CM APPL. 46667 of 2019, 18246 of 2020, W.P.(C) 13384/2019 & CM APPL. 54317/2019, 2293/2020, W.P.(C) 2309/2020 & CM APPL. 8026/2020,W.P.(C) 8527/2022, W.P.(C) W.P.(C) 8528/2022, 8527/2022, W.P.(C) 8528/2022, W.P.(C) 8543/2022, W.P.(C) 8545/2022, W.P.(C) 8547/2022, W.P.(C) 8557/2022, W.P.(C) 8564/2022, W.P.(C) 8565/2022, W.P.(C) 8220/2022 & CM APPL. 24827/2022.
Ms. Akanksha Das, Advocate, for the AIAHL in W.P.(C) 8528/2022 & W.P.(C) 8543/2022 & W.P.(C) 8545/2022 & W.P.(C) 8547/2022 & W.P.(C) 8557/2022 & W.P.(C) 8564/2022 & W.P.(C) 8565/2022.
Mr. Arnav Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Suprateek Neogi, Advocates, for the Respondent-3 in W.P.(C) 8547/2022.
Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Krishan Kumar and Ms. Usha, Advocates, for the Respondent-3 in W.P.(C) 8564/2022.
Mr. Vineet Dhanda, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Shubham Prasad, Mr. Adil Hussain Taqui and Ms. Shwti Gupta, Advocates, for the Respondent-3 in W.P.(C) 8565/2022.
Mr. Vijay Joshi and Mr. Sahaj Garg, Advocates, for the Repondent-3 in W.P.(C) 8220/2022 & CM APPL. 24827/2022.

Privatization of a government company may affect its amenability to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Writ Petitions - Maintainability - Air India Limited - Air Corporations Act, 1953, Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 - [Clause 7, Offer Letters, Surety Bond, Performance Bond, Article 12 of the Constitution of India] - The court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of maintainability due to the privatization of Air India Limited, holding that it is no longer amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court granted liberty to the Petitioners to seek remedies in an appropriate forum, with the exclusion of the time period for the purpose of computation of limitation.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions were filed seeking directions to Air India Limited for release of emoluments/terminal benefits and for quashing of 'clause 7' in the offer letters, which required the recovery of training costs from the salary of Trainee Pilots.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that due to the privatization of Air India Limited, it is no longer amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and thus dismissed the writ petitions. The court granted liberty to the Petitioners to seek remedies in an appropriate forum, with the exclusion of the time period for the purpose of computation of limitation.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petitions in light of the privatization of Air India Limited.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due to the privatization of Air India Limited, it is no longer amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and thus dismissed the writ petitions.

Final Decision: The writ petitions along with pending applications are dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioners to take recourse to remedies available to them in law, in an appropriate Forum, with the exclusion of the time period for the purpose of computation of limitation.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Above writ petitions were filed by the Petitioners inter alia seeking directions to Air India Limited (`AIL') for release of emoluments/terminal benefits etc. The common thread that, however, runs in all the writ petitions is the prayer for quashing of `clause 7' in the offer letters, wherein it is provided that after completion of training as Trainee Pilot and on being absorbed as First Officers/Co-Pilot, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, being the cost of training, will be recovered from the salary in 84 equal monthly instalments. Trainee Pilot was required to execute a Surety Bond to satisfactorily complete the training and serve for a period of at least 07 years upon absorption along with execution of a Performance Bond after completion of each subsequent training. Additionally, there was a requirement of giving post-dated cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- towards the training cost.

2. Appearing on behalf of AIL, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel, raises an objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions against AIL, owing to the disinvestment process initiated by the Government of India. It is submitted that originally AIL was a statutory body constituted under the Air Corporations Act, 1953, however, post its repeal and in terms of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, it had become a wholly owned company of the Government of India. It is at this stage that the present writ petitions were filed and rightly entertained. However, now AIL has been privatised and the entire shareholding of the Government of India in AIL has been transferred to M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd., (a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd.) and thus having ceased to be a Public Body or Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, AIL is no longer amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the objection, reliance is placed on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3585, wherein this issue was examined and after deliberating on the stands of the respective parties, writ petition was dismissed. Operative para of the judgement is as follows:

    "23. The Court also finds merit in the second objection which was addressed on behalf of the respondents who had contended that since AIL had ceased to be a government company by virtue of the exercise of privatization noted above, the writ petition itself would cease to be maintainable. This Court notes that High Courts of the country appear to have consistently taken this position as would be manifest from a reading of the decision rendered in R.S. Madireddy by the Bombay High Court and Tarun Kumar Banerjee by the Karnataka High Court. The said position has also been duly reiterated in the judgments rendered by our Court in Asulal Loya, Ladley Mohan and Satya Sagar. The writ petition would thus warrant dismissal on this score also."

3. Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the writ petitions were filed between the years 2019 to 2022 and thus Petitioners should not suffer on account of the intervening circumstances. A serious concern is also raised that if the writ petitions are dismissed, leaving the Petitioners to resort to other remedies, AIL may, in future, disown its liability towards the Petitioners on ground of privatization.

4. In order to allay the afore-stated fear/concern of the Petitioners, Mr. Nayyar, on instructions, states that if the Petitioners were to succeed in their claims before the Appropriate Forum, the liability shall rest entirely on AIL.

5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for the parties, the question that pronouncedly emanates is whether the writ petitions are liable to dismissed on ground of maintainability, in wake of the admitted position that during the pendency of these petitions, on 27.01.2022, 100% sharehol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top