Governments responsibility is to ensure no inconvenience is caused to travelling public.

(Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in the issue of the Civil Aviation Requirement, Series X Part II, dated 1-9-2005 and to quash the same.)

Aggrieved by the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 1-9-2005 issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, second respondent herein, requiring the Commercial Pilots to give a notice period of at least six months to their employer indicating their intention to leave the job and the proposed penal action under Rule 39A(2) for non-compliance of the above said requirement, the Indian Commercial Pilots Association has filed the present writ petition, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said circular.

2. The members of the petitioner-association are Commercial Pilots, holding the Commercial Pilot's Licence issued by the Central Government, working with the Indian Airlines. The second respondent issued the impugned circular dated 1-9-2005 requiring the commercial pilots working for any Air Transport Undertaking to give a notice period of at least six months to their employer indicating their intention to leave the job and shall not refuse to undertake the flight duties assigned to them. The impugned circular also indicated that failure to comply with the above requirement may lead to action against them inter alia under Rule 39A(2) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the directions contained in the impugned circular are ultra vires the powers conferred on the second respondent under Rule 133(A) as the said authority has no rule-making power or authority under the Aircraft Act and/or the Aircraft Rules to issue such directions. According to the learned counsel, by executive instructions, the second respondent cannot impose any new conditions for disqualifying a pilot from holding a licence and that it could be done only by the Central Government by amending the relevant rule.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned circular is contrary to the principles of natural justice and arbitrary inasmuch as the impugned circular does not provide for any procedure to determine whether the pilots are guilty; secondly, Clause 3.4 of the impugned circular indicates the penalty of debarring a pilot permanently or temporarily from holding any licence or rating under Rule 39A(2) of the Aircraft Rules, which rule does not provide for any opportunity of hearing before imposing the punishment; thirdly, the impugned circular does not provide for any procedure to determine the guilt of the pilots; and fourthly, there is no right of appeal against the order passed under Rule 39A(2).

5. It is next contended by the learned counsel that since Rule 39A(2) is in penal nature, it should be strictly construed. The opinion of the Central Government must be based on actual facts and circumstances of each case in order to determine whether the debarring of a pilot from holding a licence or rating permanently or temporarily is in public interest.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that there is no involvement of public interest for issuing the impugned circular. Learned counsel submitted that safety of the passengers are directly dependent upon the pilots and if a pilot is forced to work for a airliner against his wishes till the expiry of six months' notice period, it could result in mental stress and the pilot not being in a proper frame of mind to undertake the flights thereby endangering the safety of the passengers.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned circular is redundant as there is already in existence a circular dated 25-2-1993 barring the air transport undertakings from employing a serving employee of any of the national air-carrier without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the present employer. In fact, if any penal action is to be taken, it could be only against the undertaking which employs pilots in violation of the c