The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition may not be maintainable against a privatized company that has ceased to be a public body or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or such other suitable writ, order, direction calling upon the Respondent to withdraw its decision dated 08.08.2019 to deduct training costs from the salaries of Pilots who have completed more than 5 years of service;

b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition or such other suitable writ, order, direction restraining the Respondent from initiating any proceedings to recover training cost from the salaries of the Pilots who have completed more than 5 years of service; and"

2. Ms. Anindita Barman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as a result of disinvestment process initiated by the Government of India, Air India Limited ('AIL') has ceased to be a public body and therefore, no writ can lie against AIL in the circumstances that exist today. 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, however, in light of the position that obtains today, where AIL has been privatized 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.), no writ petition can lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as AIL is no longer a public body or Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In order to support the submissions, Ms. Anindita Barman, learned counsel for the Respondent relies on a judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3585: relevant para of which is as under:

"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. Vinam Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner 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. Ms. Anindita Barman, in response, submits that apprehension expressed on behalf of the Petitioner is wholly misplaced inasmuch as, if the Petitioner was to succeed before the appropriate Forum, the liability shall rest entirely on AIL.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for AIL and counsel for the Petitioner, the question that pronouncedly emanates is whether the writ petition is liable to dismissed on ground of maintainability, in wake of the admitted position that during the pendency of this petition, on 27.01.2022, 100% shareholding of Air India has been acquired by M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd. and Air India has ceased to be a Government controlled company. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri (supra) has already examined this issue and held that writ petition ceases to be maintainable. The judgment squarely covers the present case a