* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 08.12.2025

Judgment delivered on: 24.12.2025

+ LPA 862/2024 & CM APPL 50357/2024

M/S SURYA CHETAN AVIATION HANDLING SERVICES

.....Appellant

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

+ LPA 892/2024 & CM APPL 51550/2024

AUREA AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

+ LPA 949/2024 & CM APPL 55530/2024

SRI SAI SAMPATH AVIATION SERVICES .....Appellant

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Umakant Mishra, Ms. Prabhati Nayak and

Mr. Debabrata Dash, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.

Yash Bhardia and Mr. Pradyumn Singh,

Advocates for R-1/UOI.

Mr. Digvijay Rai, Standing Counsel with Mr. Archit Mishra, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates with Mr. Mukesh Kumar JGM (OPS), Mr. Parveen Kumar DGM (OPS) and Mr. Vivek

Gupta DGM (LAW) for R-2/AAI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeals, the appellants are challenging the common impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.8502/2023, 10678/2023, and 14394/2023 passed on 06.08.2024 (hereafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) dismissing the writ petitions holding that the facts have established that M/s Redbird Airways Pvt. Ltd., M/s Airclub Aviation, and M/s Aircab Aviation have conflict of interest by having direct ownership interest, and simultaneously held that the show cause notices issued by the respondent no.2/Airport Authority of India (hereafter referred to as “AAI”) had conformed to the principles settled by the Apex Court. We also note that the impugned judgment has also opined that a writ Court, while considering a case of judicial review in exercise of its writ jurisdiction examines the “decision making process” alone, and not the decision itself.

2. Since the learned Single Judge has noted facts occurring in the present appeals in detail in paragraphs 3 to 12 of the impugned judgment, we refrain from reproducing the same in extenso, for the sake of brevity.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the records and perused the judgments relied on. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were reiteration of the submissions placed before the learned Single Judge.

4. At the outset we would deal with the submission of the appellants in LPA No.862/2025 and LPA No.949/2025.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complaint which triggered the AAI to issue show cause notices dated 22.03.2023 and 23.03.2023, and subsequent debarment order dated 05.05.2023, and the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was anonymous, and therefore following the Central Vigilance Commission (hereafter referred to as “CVC”) guidelines which prohibited authorities from acting on anonymous complaints, the same could not have been taken cognizance of.

6. To the said contention, we note that the learned Single Judge had noted in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment, and even the counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the email dated 02.03.2023 emanating from the office of the Ministry of Civil Aviation directing AAI to examine the complaint, and take necessary action, if warranted. It has to be borne in mind that the AAI functions under the control and directions of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, being its nodal Ministry, and is obligated to follow the directions received from the said Ministry. In such circumstances, the submission that the AAI could not have examined the complaint or had violated the CVC Guidelines, is unmerited and is rejected. 7. The other leg of argument was predicated on the contention that the show cause notices did not disclose or indicate the penalty sought to be imposed, and therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. F