Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Capt. Amit Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 13716 of 2018
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Mr.Anshul Sehgal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Nippun Sharma and Ms. Hetika Vadhera, Advocates alongwith Mr. S.P. Singh, Assistant Director, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Akshat Hansaria, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 4.
Headnote:(A) Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR), 2015 - Regulations 4.1, 6.5, and 8.1 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Pilot license suspension for testing positive for alcohol in pre-flight tests - Procedures mandated in CAR were followed - Second test required by regulation confirmed positive result, despite claims of negative results from subsequent blood/urine tests - Court emphasizes safety standards in aviation mandate zero tolerance for alcohol due to responsibilities involved. (Paras 24, 37, 46, 61)
(B) Accountability of Airlines and DGCA - Adequate procedures are laid down to prevent false positives - Court declines to entertain arguments comparing aviation regulations in India with those in other countries due to different operational environments. (Paras 50, 58, 59)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a pilot, was suspended for three months after two pre-flight BA Tests indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.004%, subsequently contested by the pilot based on negative blood and urine tests conducted later.
Issues: Validity of pre-flight BA Test results versus blood and urine tests and impartiality of equipment used for BA Tests.
Findings of Court:
Procedures outlined in CAR were properly adhered to, confirming the aircraft's operational safety standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the responsibility for strict adherence to aviation safety regulations lies with pilots and airlines, affirming that the procedure for BA Tests is designed to safeguard flight safety against any form of intoxication.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J. The present Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning the Orders dated 04.12.2017 and 18.07.2018 (`Impugned Orders') passed by Joint Director General, Director General of Civil Aviation and Director General of Civil Aviation (Respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as `DGCA') respectively. Vide the Impugned Orders, the pilot license of Petitioner was suspended for a period of three months as per Regulation 8.1 of Civil Aviation Requirement (hereinafter referred to as `CAR') for testing positive for blood alcohol content in pre-flight breath analyzer test (`BA Test').
FACTS GERMANE FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRESENT WRIT PETITION
2. The exposition of facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition is that the Petitioner is a pilot employed with Tata SIA Airlines Ltd. (Respondent No. 4) (hereinafter referred to as `Vistara'), which is running its Airline by the name of `Vistara Airlines'. The Petitioner was scheduled to operate a flight bearing No. `UK 720' on 18.11.2017 from Kolkata to New Delhi, along with his senior, Captain Gurpreet Nijjer (hereinafter referred to as `Capt. Nijjer'). The estimate time of departure of the said flight was 07:10 am, so the reporting time of the Petitioner was scheduled at around 06:00 am on 18.11.2017 at Kolkata Airport.
3. Accordingly, the Petitioner reported at Kolkata Airport and contacted paramedic nurse at 06:11 am for pre-flight Breath Analyser Test as per the Regulations provided under CAR. The Petitioner was tested positive in the BA Test. The equipment used for conducting BA Test showed a reading of 0.004% alcohol in the blood of Petitioner.
4. It is the case of Petitioner that he had not consumed any alcohol, sedative, narcotic or any stimulant drug so, he was stunned when he got to know that his BA Test was found positive. Thereafter, he consumed few glasses of water and a cup of tea before his second BA Test. Between the first and second BA Test, a control test was conducted on Capt. Nijjer as provided in CAR. After a while, second BA Test of Petitioner was conducted which also turned out to be positive. Again, the equipment showed a reading of 0.004% blood alcohol content in blood of Petitioner.
5. Pursuant to positive result in second BA Test, the Petitioner was asked by Vistara Airlines to submit his pilot license for necessary action and he was also removed from flying roster following the procedure provided in CAR.
6. It is the case of Petitioner that after being removed from flying roster, he immediately visited two NABL accredited laboratories to undergo blood and urine tests for detecting presence of blood alcohol as he was apprehending that the equipment used for conducting BA Tests was prone to making errors. It is his case that around 09:00 am, he underwent a urine and blood test at `Dr. Lal Pathlabs' and at around 10:00 am, he underwent urine and blood test at `SRL Ltd.'. It is further the case of Petitioner that he got a video recorded of the tests being conducted at SRL Ltd. so as to prove that the blood tests were indeed conducted on him.
7. It is the case of Petitioner that he subsequently sent an email dated 18.11.2017 at 10:54 am to the Vistara Airlines informing them that he had undergone blood and urine tests at NABL certified laboratories to prove his innocence. It is claimed by the Petitioner that the concerned officials of Vistara Airlines replied to the said email on 18.11.2017, whereby it directed the Petitioner to forward tests result upon receipt.
8. The Petitioner received the tests results from SFL Ltd. on 20.11.2017, wherein it was stated that no alcohol was found in the Petitioner's blood and urine sample. It is further his claim that result of second test from Dr. Pathlabs also came to be negative which meant that no alcohol was found in blood and urine of Petitioner.
9. It is the case of Petitioner that he immediately forwarded the results of these tests to
