Petitioner challenged termination by a private airline via writ under Article 226. Court held contract was private and airline not a State authority under Article 12, rendering writ not maintainable against private entity for commercial duties.
Petition and pending applications dismissed as not maintainable against private entity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~68
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondents : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, SPC with Mr. Francis Fernandes and Ms. Saakshi Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Gokul Sharma, G.P. for R-1 and R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
(The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)
CM APPL. 2141/2024 (for exemption)
W.P.(C) 483/2024 & CM APPL. 2140/2024 (for direction)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 483/2024 Page 1 of 6
Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.01.2024 12:44:45
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other Writ or direction in the like nature, summoning the record and to quash the termination letter dated 3.5.2023 issued by the respondent no.3 being non-est and bad in the eyes of law;
b) Issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to consider and dispose off the representations dated 10.7.2023 & 1.7.2023 in accordance with law at the earliest;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, awarding compensation in favour of the petitioner for mental and physical distress, agony, loss of seniority, negative impact on the service and reputational damage etc. endured due to actions taken by respondent no.3;”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 483/2024 Page 2 of 6
Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.01.2024 12:44:45
“4. Indigo's Forceful Imposition of Fatigued Crew Members on Six-Sector Pattern is a violation of Safety Guidelines as per “Aircraft rules 1937 port iii (214) General Safety “obstruct or distract the functioning of any person entrusted with any responsibility towards ensuring safe and secure operation of aircraft”.
5.
Aircraft Rules 1937 part iii (29)
“Acts likely to imperil the safety of aircraft- No person shall interfere with the pilot or with a member of the operating crew of an aircraft, or tamper with the aircraft or its equipment or conduct himself in a disorderly manner in an aircraft or commit any act likely to imperil the safety of an aircraft or its passengers or crew”.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 483/2024 Page 3 of 6
Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.01.2024 12:44:45
which was submitted to the DGCA ought to have been considered and disposed of in accordance with the rules.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 483/2024 Page 4 of 6
Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.01.2024 12:44:45
Constitution of India is maintainable against private entities held as under :-
“ 34. It is, therefore, concluded, that the court will proceed to determine the disputed matters only after conducting a thorough examination, first, during the admission of the writ petition, and second, during the final hearing. This examination is necessary to establish whether the respondent, who is accused of violating the petitioner's legal or fundamental rights, falls within the jurisdiction of the writ court.
35. The aforementioned discussion leads to the conclusion that the Court, upon being approached by the aggrieved party, must possess the authority to issue a writ, order, or direction to the party against whom such relief is being sought for breaching of a legal or a fundamental right. The party against whom the writ is to be issued, must fall within the ambit of the Article 12 i.e. it should be a 'State' or "other authority'.
36. This Court is of the view that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ cannot be issued against a Government entity which has been subsequently privatized and is presently a private entity which is not performing a public duty anymore. The Government entity which has been privatized is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and does not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The guiding factor, therefore, is the nature of duty imposed on such a body namely, the public duty to make any authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
37. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the phrase "for any other purpose" has to be given a narrower meaning to exclude private entities performing their private and commercial duties from the ambit of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, a private entity does not fall within the ambit of Article 226 as there is an alternate remedy available against such private entity.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 483/2024 Page 5 of 6
Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.01.2024 12:44:45
India. The major or the original action of termination ought to be by an Authority, which falls within the definition as ascribed under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to be assailable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar action of termination by any other Authority unless they are performing a public duty, would not fall within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JANUARY 18, 2024 nd
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 483/2024 Page 6 of 6
Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.01.2024 12:44:45
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private airline for termination of services based on a private contract.
Whether the petitioner can approach the court under Article 226 seeking quashing of termination by a private entity.
Whether the petitioner can claim relief for mental and physical distress resulting from the termination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Naresh Kumar and Others versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and OthersFollowed¶47
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4919 · Who else cites this
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical BiologyFollowed¶47
(2002) 5 SCC 111 · Who else cites this
Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶47
(2005) 4 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶47
(2002) 2 SCC 333 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhojit Chatterjee
Union of India
Director General of Civil Aviation
Interglobe Aviation Ltd.
Tushar Rao Gedela
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
