JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, CJ

Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for declaring the circulars AIC No: 7/2007 dated 28.9.2007, AIC No: 15/2008 dated 31.12.2008, AIC No: 6/2009 dated 30.6.2009, AIC No:13/2009 dated 31.12.2009, AIC No:3/2010 dated 2.6.2010 and the Regulations, namely, Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (for short 2007 Regulations') as ultra vires the provisions of The Aircraft Act, 1934 (for short 'the 1934 Act'), The Aircraft Rules, 1937 (for short 'the 1937 Rules') and The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (for short 'the 1994 Act') and also ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and further to issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same.

THE FACTUAL EXPOSITION AND THE STAND OF THE PETITIONERS

2. The petitioner No.1, Federation of Indian Airlines, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 comprising all the airline carriers which include the other writ petitioners. It is involved in promoting and diffusing useful knowledge on the aviation industry in India and represents the aviation industry before the concerned authorities for the purpose of resolving the issues and challenges faced by the said industry. The petitioner Nos.2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are engaged in the business of providing scheduled air transport services. As an integral part of their business, they operate airlines under the brand names SpiceJet, IndiGo, GoAir, Jet Airways (including Jet Konnect), Jet Lite, Kingfisher (include Kingfisher Red), etc. The petitioner Nos.3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are shareholders and / or directors of their respective companies.

3. As set forth, the business of running the airlines consists, inter alia, of owning and / or operating airplanes and provision of ground handling facilities in relation thereto all of which are undertaken by the personnel dedicated for the said purpose. Though there are outsourced personnel engaged by various airlines for the same purpose, yet the choice of whether to outsource and to whom had been left to the option of the concerned airlines.

4. The airlines, like the petitioners, are involved in providing self-ground handling service and even if they are undertaking ground handling services through third parties, each airline has the right to conduct self-ground handling services. Ground handling constitutes an integral and inalienable part of any airlines' business and it is one of the main and unique, selling proposition of the airlines differentiating the services provided by one particular airline from their competitors. The ground handling services are aimed at providing a hassle free experience to the passengers and are akin to providing hospitality services. Some of the airlines provide self-ground handling services themselves while some airlines sub-contract the same to the airports or a handling agent or to another airline. The said exercise is carried out by an airline after careful consideration of numerous factors including the capability and competency of the agency to provide ground handling services, the cost impact, the suitability of the business model and the reputation and standard maintained in the industry. The purpose of the said agents are monitored by the airlines by strict service level agreements bearing, amongst others, financial implications in case of failure to meet the agreed standards of service.

5. It is the experience of the petitioners that undertaking ground handling services themselves have enabled them to maintain the quality, cost and efficiency, level of performance and also helped in providing comfort and satisfaction to the passengers. The decision to undertake the ground handling services, which includes ramp handling and traffic handling, by themselves or to outsource