Augustine George Masih, J.@mdashThe present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated
28.6.2010, allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1, quashing the impugned orders with a direction to the appellant herein to
exercise the powers vested under Rule 160 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (for short, ""1937 Rules"") and Rule 42 of the Rules. Present is a case where
respondent No. 1, Lakhbir Singh, had been making frantic efforts for obtaining the Commercial Pilot Licence (hereinafter referred to as ""CPL""),
for which he was eligible in the year 1999 when he had completed his entire training and had submitted his application, which was forwarded on
13.9.1999 but the same has been denied to him by the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for one reason or the other.
2. Respondent No. 1, in response to an advertisement issued on 26.5.1995, applied for the course of Private Pilot Licence and CPL. His name
was sponsored by the Haryana Institution of Civil Aviation, respondent No. 5, for concessional flying training being a Haryana domicile candidate.
He was required to clear the written knowledge papers and on clearance of each paper, he was entitled to certain flying hours out of the total
quota of flying hours during the course. Despite having cleared the written knowledge papers, the complete required flying hours training was not
imparted to respondent No. 1, which forced him to file Civil Writ Petition No. 5925 of 1997, seeking directions to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for
providing him the facilities to complete the flying quota hours so that the mandatory requirement of training course is fulfilled. The stand of the
respondents therein was that due to paucity of funds, the flying hours could not be awarded to respondent No. 1 and additional hours would be
granted to him in subsequent financial year i.e. 1997-98 and on this undertaking the writ was disposed of.
3. Respondent No. 1 cleared the 6th knowledge paper as well in the year 1997-98 and, thus, became entitled to 90 hours of Haryana Flying
Quota. He completed 4:15 hours of flying by his own means and by 31.3.1998 completed 210:15 flying training hours out of the total required 250
hours. The balance 39:45 hours commensurate with the backlog to the year 1996-97. This backlog could not be cleared by respondent No. 1
because of inaction on the part of the respondents as per the undertaking given before this Court and, therefore, he sent a representation on
5.3.1998, pointing out therein that his Aviation Metrology paper was going to lapse on 30.4.1998 and his flying training had not been completed
by that period. Prior to the decision on the said representation, the period lapsed. A contempt petition was preferred by respondent No. 1 and in
pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, his flying hours were completed. It is thereafter that the application submitted by respondent No. 1
was forwarded to the appellant, which was rejected by the appellant on 21.9.1999 on the ground that the knowledge papers of Air Navigation
and Air Regulation, which were passed by respondent No. 1, had lapsed by 10 months and 14 days. It was further stated that extension for
validity papers could not be granted beyond six months.
4. Respondent No. 1 preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 1744 of 2000, challenging the rejection order dated 21.9.1999. This writ petition was
allowed vide order dated 4.4.2005, directing the appellant to pass a fresh speaking order. On reconsideration, the application was again rejected
on 2.5.2005.
5. Respondent No. 1 yet again had to file Civil Writ Petition No. 10148 of 2005 and this time challenging the order dated 2.5.2005. This writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated 7.3.2006, directing respondent No. 1 to undergo fresh training as per the statement made by counsel for
the appellant. Review preferred by respondent No. 1 was dismissed on 4.8.2006.
6. Respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the Advisor, Civil Aviation, Haryana, Department of Civil Aviation, respondent No. 4, expressing his
willingness to undergo additional training, if required. Communications between respondent No. 1, the appellant and the other respondents, took
place. However, vide a communication dated 9.6.2008, the appellant informed that respondent No. 1 did not meet the requirements for grant of
CPL.
7. Respondent No. 1 again had to approach this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 14916 of 2008, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on
25.8.2008 with liberty to seek information from the respondents about the requirements to be fulfilled by respondent No. 1 for getting CPL. On a
representation submitted by respondent No. 1, the appellant informed vide letter dated 3.10.2008 that he would have to meet all the requirements
afresh as laid down in Section J of the Schedule-II of the 1937 Rules, forcing respondent No. 1 again to file a writ petition in this Court, which has
now been allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.8.2010, holding the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 responsible for the delay in
completing the training, which respondent No. 1 was required and had actually completed in the year 1999. No fault has been found on the part of
respondent No. 1. It has also been found as a matter of fact that respondent No. 2 had granted extension for validation of the written examination,
where the period has lapsed and in this regard reference has been made to the case of one Sh. Sandeep Suri, wherein while exercising powers
under Rule 160 of 1937 Rules, extension has been granted by requiring said Sh. Sandeep Suri to undergo recency flying of 15 hours as Pilot-in-
Command (PIC) and out of these 15 hours, (a) 5 hours should be at night (b) skill test by day and night and cross country skill test by day and
night. This example has been quoted to highlight discrimination as also the powers available with respondent No. 2 to provide exemption to the
candidates under the rules where such a situation arises. Rule 42 of the 1937 Rules contemplates a situation where for validity of application of
renewal of licence, certain requirements are to be fulfilled. In conclusion, it has been held that the case of respondent No. 1 be considered for
issuance of CPL afresh by invoking the powers under Rule 160 by applying Rule 42 of the 1937 Rules and thereafter take appropriate decision
with regard to the grant of licence within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
8. Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the general powers of exemption under Rule 160 of the 1937 Rules can be exercised by the
Central Government and not by the appellant to whom the directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the judgment
deserves to be set-aside. Challenge has also been laid to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, directing the consideration of the case of
respondent No. 1 by invoking Rules 160 and 42 of the 1937 Rules.
9. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and has asserted that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with law and based on the facts of the case.
10. We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
11. Facts, being not in dispute, need not be referred to again but suffice it to say that a very grave picture emerges when seen in the light of the
above factual matrix on the part of the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It is sheer inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 that
respondent No. 1 has been deprived of his CPL, which he would have been entitled to in the year 1999. Abrasions, if any, were on the part of
these respondents, for which respondent No. 1 has been unnecessarily penalised leading to loss of now 13 years of flying career. Though the
efforts on the part of respondent No. 1 were prompt and apt yet the same did not yield any result. Even the competent authority i.e. Ministry of
Civil Aviation, Government of India, respondent No. 2, which has the discretionary power under Rule 160 of the 1937 Rules, has failed to
exercise its powers and has infact discriminated vis-a-vis respondent No. 1, when reference is made to the case of one Sh. Sandeep Suri referred
to above and Dinesh Bansal. In the case of Sh. Dinesh Bansal in whose case also, paper of Aircraft Engine, which he passed on 25.2.1994, stood
lapsed by more than six months on 13.9.1996, when he passed the last paper of signals and he was granted the extension by the Ministry of Civil
Aviation. This fact is apparent from document, Annexure R1/6.
12. The directions, thus, issued by the learned Single Judge, as contained in Para 9, are quite justified and in accordance with Rules, which reads
as follow:--
9. If the issues of air safety and the fairness to the petitioner were to be bridged, it has to be by adopting some pragmatic approach. The petitioner
pleads for the following: that he had completed his entire training in the year 1999 and his application was forwarded on 13.09.1999. By exercise
of the powers vested under Rule 160, the petitioner could be treated as having been granted a licence and following a procedure for grant of
renewal of licence. The provision for renewal of licence is secured through Rule 42 of the Aircraft Rule of 1937. Rule 42 contemplates a situation
where, for the validity of application for renewal of the licence, if a licence had been obtained for a period of more than 3 years prior to the
application, then all the examinations and tests required for the issue of CPL would have to be undergone. The consideration of petitioner''s request
for grant of CPL request could therefore be termed on the same basis for a fictional grant of licence as though he was applying for a renewal. The
2nd respondent shall therefore exercise his power under Rule 160 to exempt the application of rules for the petitioner in so far as it fixes a
particular time gap between the pass in the knowledge papers and flying training to the date of application. This power could be exercised by
deeming a fiction that if he had been found eligible for CPL for renewal, he would have been only required to follow the procedure which is
required u/s 42 and that procedure could be invoked by directing the petitioner to pass those papers for issuance of the CPL. This power shall be
exercised only by the 2nd respondent and it shall not be possible for this Court to usurp that power. By such a process, I believe that the writ
petition of the petitioner for testing his knowledge in a typical situation where a renewal of a licence is sought after the expiry of the original licence
period will adequately address the necessity for currency of knowledge skills. All the impugned orders are quashed and the 2nd respondent shall
consider the issuance of CPL afresh by invoking the powers to relax the conditions under Rule 160 and apply Rule 42 for testing his knowledge by
requiring him to undergo such tests as Rule 42 lays down and take an appropriate decision with regard to the grant of the licence within a period of
8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
13. The judgment passed by learned Single Judge, being in accordance with the 1937 Rules, particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, does not call for any interference by this Court. Otherwise also, it has been clarified by the learned Single Judge in the abovesaid
para that the respondent shall consider the issuance of CPL afresh by invoking the powers to relax the conditions under Rules 160 and 42 of the
1937 Rules for testing his knowledge by asking him to undergo the required tests, which takes care of the mandate of the statutory rules and the
safeguards provided thereunder. The final decision has to be of the competent authority which has been left open by the Court at its hands. We are
not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as there is no illegality which requires our indulgence. The appeal,
therefore, stands dismissed. However, it is clarified that the directions as issued to the appellant shall be read as directions issued to the Ministry of
Civil Aviation, Government of India, respondent No. 2 herein, the competent authority under the 1937 Rules even as per the appellant, which shall
be complied with by the said respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.