College Of Aeronautical Engineering And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr

Heard Mr. B.S. Lahkar, the petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI for the respondents.

Without going into the details of the facts sought to be raised in the writ petition, we have taken note of that the petitioner institute is an institute

imparting training course in aircraft maintenance. The approval to the petitioner institute was granted under CAR-E in the year 2009 and has been

functioning since then. In the meantime, the respondent DGCA had introduced CAR 147 w.e.f. 27.12.2017 and as per CAR.147.A.01(b), all such

training organizations/institutes which were earlier approved under the CAR-E Section 2 would require a further approval under the CAR 147,

provided the institute enters a long term viable agreement and technical arrangement with Approved Maintenance Organizations (AMO) for imparting

practical training to the students of the institute. The petitioner being an institute was having some difficulty in arriving at long term viable agreement

with any such AMOs and in the circumstance, had made a request to the DGCA that the petitioner institute be exempted from complying with the

requirement of CAR 147.A.01(b). The said request of the petitioner institute stood rejected as per the letter dated 20.07.2018 of the Under-Secretary

to the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Being aggrieved, the present writ petitions are being instituted. By an earlier order dated 16.07.2020 we took note of the provisions of Note-3 to

CAR.147.A.100 which provides that an approved AMO may have contract with only one institute at a particular location. Our apprehension was that

the number of institutes seeking for such agreement with an AMO would be more than the number of AMOs available. It is stated that all over the

country there are about 35 such institutes which impart training courses in aircraft maintenance.

Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI upon instruction has produced a list of such AMOs/MROs and it is stated that in the country there are a total of 113

numbers of such AMO/MRO and therefore the number of AMOs available is more than the number of institutes.

Mr. B.S. Lahkar, on the other hand responds that the courses offered by the petitioner institute is of a higher magnitude and accordingly, the

requirement of technical training are also higher commensurating with the level of the technical courses on offer.

For the purpose, Mr. B.S. Lahkar refers to the entire course that the petitioner institute is offering to the students. It is contended that to have the

practical training corresponding to such courses being offered by the petitioner institute, the facilities available in the particular AMO/MRO would also

have to be of such a level which would commensurate with the courses offered. It is stated that all such AMOs/MROs contained in the list provided

by the DGCA do not offer the practical training in respect of all the subject matter being undertaken in the petitioner institute. We appreciate the

apprehension of the petitioner as well as the requirement of CAR 147.A.01(b) where the institutes concerned are required to have a long term

agreement with any such AMOs/MROs.

In order to facilitate the requirement of the petitioner institute, we provide that the petitioner institute shall submit a detailed representation to the

DGCA stating in detail the courses offered by them to the students. The DGCA upon going through the nature of the courses provided shall apply its

mind and find out as to which of the AMOs/MROs would be suitable so that the practical training to be provided shall commensurate with the nature

and magnitude of the technical courses offered by the petitioner institute as it is a statutory requirement of CAR 147.A.01(b) to have a long term

viable agreement and technical arrangement with a AMO/MRO. The DGCA upon arriving at the suitable AMO/MRO that would suffice the needs of

the practical training to be offered by the petitioner institute shall take it up with the concerned AMO/MRO so selected by the DGCA so as to

facilitate the petitioner to have a long term viable agreement/technical arrangement with such AMO/MRO.

The aforesaid requirement provided in this order is in the interest of the students of the petitioner institute who would otherwise be adversely

affected if such suitable AMOs/MROs are not identified for the petitioner institute and the petitioner cannot have a long term viable

agreement/technical arrangement with such AMO/MRO. The representation by the petitioner be submitted forthwith and as urgency expressed in the

matter relates to the career of the students of the petitioner institute, the DGCA to do the needful within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt

of the representation by the petitioner institute. The petitioner in their representation shall state in detail all the courses offered by them and the

requirement of the practical training for such courses. The required representation may be submitted by the petitioner through e-mail due to the

prevailing Covid-19 pandemic and for the purpose Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI shall provide the e-mail address of the DGCA to the petitioner

institute.

The DGCA in performing the requirement of this order shall also take note of that for the last 2 years, students were admitted to the petitioner

institute conditionally subjected to the result of the writ petition.

Writ petitions allowed in the manner indicated above.

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.