The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of privatization on the maintainability of a writ petition and the liability of the privatized entity in case of seeking remedies in a different forum.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to grant Privileged Leave to the Petitioner for at least 15 days from the quota of F.Y. 2015-2016;

b) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to immediately expunge the remarks of "absent without leave" from the career records of the Petitioner w.e.f. 10.03.2016;

c) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to immediately release arrears of Petitioner's Salary and 72 hours flying allowance from March, 2016 till date;

d) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to take the Petitioner on regular flying roster after availing the Privileged Leave so granted to him;

e) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to immediately take appropriate disciplinary actions against the Respondent Nos.1-3 for their arbitrary, illegal and mala fide actions against the Petitioner;

f) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent to not to follow this kind of victimisation of the pilots in future;"

2. Appearing on behalf of AIL, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel, raises an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition 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 petition was 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, where 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. Ashutosh Lohia, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in R.S. Madireddy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2657 dismissing the writ petition on account of disinvestment of AIL has been challenged before the Supreme Court and notice has been issued on 16.01.2023. Learned counsel also expresses an apprehension that if the writ petition is disposed of and Petitioner is left to resort to other remedies, AIL may, in future, disown its liability towards the Petitioner on the ground that it is privatized.

4. Mr. Nayyar, in response, submits th