JUDGMENT :

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.

1. Taking exception to the order dated 12th March 2011, passed by Respondent, i.e., the Director General of Civil Aviation, the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 12th March 2011 by which the license of the petitioner came to be suspended by the Respondent, invoking clause (d) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule (19) of Aircraft Rules, 1937 read with Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation Notification No. SO 727 (E) of October 1994.

2. Facts germane to the present petition are enumerated as under.

3. The petitioner had obtained a Commercial Pilot License (CPL) after undergoing training at the Airline Asian Academy in Orlando, Florida, USA. After completing his initial flying training in the USA, the petitioner returned to India and applied for the endorsement of his CPL to the Respondent. After necessary checks and verifications, the petitioner was issued a Commercial Pilot License No. 1869 on 13th December 1988, which was renewed periodically by the Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioner that initially, the petitioner was employed with Air India as a trainee pilot and after completing successful training with Air India and obtaining an endorsement on his CPL for Airbus 310 Aircraft from the respondent, the petitioner was appointed as a co-pilot in the year 1991 and was confirmed with effect from 1st November 1992. It is further the case that during his employment with Air India, the petitioner was operating flights on regular basis and he underwent checks on regular basis with diverse check pilots/instructors licensed by the respondent to do so. It is further the case that for a period of 22 years, the petitioner was assessed and found to be a competent flyer by each one of the check pilots/instructors who conducted said checks on the petitioner and also by hundreds of pilots with whom the petitioner flew during the period of 22 years. It is further the case that considering his experience, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for the issuance of an Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) on having obtained his experience of flying with Air India for almost about 7000 hours. It is further the case that the Petitioner appeared for the test of ATPL in USA as well as in India and was issued an ATPL Certificate dated 01/09/2010 by the FAA (USA). It is the case that the petitioner after successfully completing the tests and having gained requisite experience, he applied for an ATPL to the Respondent and accordingly forwarded the application and requisite documents to the respondent, who after verification of the documents issued an ATPL bearing No. 4355. It is further the case that the petitioner had also undergone the license renewal checks on 16th May 2010 and 31st August 2010 with the DGCA approved examiner who had issued the certificate certifying the petitioner to be fit for renewal of his license.

4. It is further the case that on or about 7th March 2011, a complaint was filed by Crime Branch at New Delhi alleging that one Captain by name Captain Parmindar Kaur Gulati had obtained the ATPL license on the basis of forged documents and upon scrutiny, it was revealed that the result card of the examination submitted by Captain Parmindar Gulati was forged and therefore, a case came to be registered. On the basis of the said complaint, the Petitioner was arrested on 12th March 2011 and was released on bail on 19th March 2011. After the registration of the FIR, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 12th March 2011, which is under challenge.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent supported the said order and submitted that the order passed by the Respondent DGCA was neither arbitrary nor illegal and that it was passed on merits, based on the documents available on record. He further submitted that the Petitioner had applied w