$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4541/2023 Date of Decision: 11.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

ROHAN DEV .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Adv. for R-1.

Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for DGCA.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ, Order, Directions of similar nature to direct the Respondent No.2, to issue Commercial Pilot license (CPL) to the Petitioner herein in his DGCA File no. 1-1949/2010-L-2. and further b. Any other relief/s which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner claims to have completed mandatory commercial pilot training at M/s Sai Flytech Aviation, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, from 02.12.2010 to 30.09.2011, completing 70 hours and 40 minutes of flying and at Saraswati Aviation Academy, Sultanpur, U.P., from 18.07.2013 to

07.09.2019, completing 171 hours and 20 minutes of flying, thereby fulfilling the requirement of 200 hours to be eligible for a Commercial Pilot License (CPL).

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has cleared all examinations conducted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in 2014 and 2015, which are mandatory for applying for a CPL. Thereafter, he submitted an application for issuance of CPL to the DGCA on 09.08.2019, along with the requisite documents. Subsequently, several representations were made. However, the application was allegedly not considered. The delay has been attributed to a pending vigilance/investigation concerning M/s Sai Flytech Aviation.

4. On 08.08.2023, this court directed the DGCA to examine the petitioner’s case. Thereupon, on 23.08.2023, DGCA considered the petitioner’s grievance and passed the following order:

“In this regard, it is intimated that in accordance with the directives issued by the Hon'ble High Court, if your disputed 70:40 hours of flying experience are disregarded, you will not be meeting the requirement of total flying experience of 200 hours in accordance with Para 1(e) of Section 'J' of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 read in conjunction with Para 8(e) of Section 'A' of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, for issue of CPL and thereby rendering you disqualified for issue of CPL against your application dated 09.08.2019.

As on date, several other requirements for issue of CPL i.e. knowledge papers, recency, medical, ELP etc. have lapsed. Therefore, by undertaking 28:40 hours of flying on date, you will meet the total flying experience element of the requirement only and all other requirements mentioned above would continue to remain lapsed.

Accordingly, you will have to submit a fresh application after meeting all the requirements CPL on the next date of submission. The detailed analysis of the requirements for issue of CPL expired and to be met on the next date of submission is enclosed as Appendix-A.

The issues with the approval of competent authority.”

5. The decision of the DGCA, thus, would indicate that if the disputed 70 hours 40 minutes of flying experience obtained from M/s Sai Flytech Aviation is excluded, the petitioner does not meet the minimum 200 flying hours requirement under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for issuance of a CPL. DGCA further stated that several other requirements, such as knowledge papers, medical validity, recency, and english language proficiency, have also expired. Consequently, the DGCA advised the petitioner to file a fresh application if he meets the necessary requirements.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has certain reservations in applying afresh and he submits that the eligibility of the petitioner should be considered as on the date of application, i.e. 09.08.2019. According to him, if the petitioner fulfils the criteria as on 09.08.2019, there is no reas