Dismissed

Mahabir Singh Beniwal v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/6989/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order dismissing suspension of petitioner s commercial pilot licence as it was passed without opportunity to show cause and without recorded reasons and directing DGCA to consider his fresh application under rule 42 without let or hindrance .

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to apply for licence under Rule 42; DGCA barred from considering only invalid order.

Mahabir Singh Beniwal Vs Director General of Civil… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6989/2013

¶4

MAHABIR SINGH BENIWAL ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Gagan Gupta, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Pradeep Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr Chandramani Pandey, Asst. Director DGCA.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.02.2018

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 11.01.2011 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) issued by respondent no.1 (hereafter „DGCA‟) suspending the petitioner‟s Commercial Pilot Licence (Licence No.CPL1376) in terms of Rule 19(3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (hereafter „the Aircraft Rules‟).

¶12

The petitioner had obtained the Commercial Pilot‟s Licence in the year 1982, which was renewed from time to time. The said Licence was last renewed on 26.02.2007 and was valid upto 25.02.2012.

¶13

The petitioner had joined as a Pilot-Instructor Incharge/Chief Flying Instructor at Haryana Institute of Civil Aviation, Chandigarh and was posted at Hisar on 02.01.2003. During the period 2010-11, twelve FIRs were filed,

¶14

inter alia , against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had countersigned certain certificates of pilots, which were found to be fake. The petitioner states that in three of the said FIRs, the petitioner has been given a clean chit and no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner; however, proceedings in relation to the other FIRs are pending.

¶15

In view of the above allegations, the DGCA had passed the impugned order.

¶16

Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer Rule 19(3) of the Aircraft Rules, which reads as under:-

¶17

“(3) If the Central Government is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for doing so or, in the case of suspension during investigation that suspension is necessary in the public interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,-

¶18

(a) suspend any certificate, rating or licence, [authorisation and approval] or any or all of the privileges of any certificate, rating or licence, [authorisation and approval], for any specified period;

¶19

(b) suspend any certificate, rating or licence, [authorisation and approval] during the investigation of any matter;

¶20

¶21

(d) endorse any adverse remarks on any certificate, rating or licence, [authorisation and approval].”

¶22

It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid Rule that the Central Government can suspend the Licence of a Commercial Pilot during the investigation if it considers that the same is necessary in public interest. It is also necessary that the reasons for such action are recorded in writing.

¶23

Concededly, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause why the Central Government (DGCA) should not take any such measure. Facially, the impugned order also does not indicate that the Central Government was satisfied that suspending the petitioner‟s Commercial Pilot Licence was necessary in public interest. Undisputedly, the impugned order has severe adverse consequences for the petitioner. Thus, this Court is of the view that it was necessary for the DGCA to have afforded the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order.

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it would be apposite to set aside the same and remand the matter to the DGCA for consideration afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. However, the petitioner‟s Commercial Pilot Licence has since expired and, therefore, the question of directing that suspension be revoked would not be apposite.

¶25

It is not disputed that if the petitioner seeks the Licence/renewal thereof, he would have to apply under Rule 42 of the Aircraft Rules.

¶26

In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to direct that in the event the petitioner applies for Commercial Pilot‟s Licence in accordance with Rule 42 of the Aircraft Rules, the impugned order would not come in the way of the petitioner‟s application being considered. It is clarified that the DGCA (Central Government) would, nonetheless, retain the jurisdiction of keeping the Licence under suspension by passing an appropriate order under Rule 19(3) of the Aircraft Rules if and when the

¶27

Licence is renewed/issued. Needless to state that any such order would necessarily have to conform the requirements of Rule 19(3) as noted above.

¶28

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶29

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 09, 2018 MK

Mahabir Singh Beniwal v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Singh Beniwal v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

National College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Shri Sat Narain Vs Shri Parmeshwar Singh and Ors.

Top Edge Security and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mishro Devi and Anr. Vs Lt. Governor Delhi and Ors.

Executive Engineer (Civil) Sbpd, Prasar Bharti Vs M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited

Binil P.T. Vs the Govt. of Nctd and Ors.

Sunplast India Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Unikil Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Top Edge Security and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Land & Building Department Vs Prem Chand

Gaurav Seth and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mangal Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohd Haroon & Anr. Vs Mohd Yahya