- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
International Lease Finance Corporation Petitioner v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed applications to bring on record a changed policy of the Government of India and sought directions, including intimation of charges payable for parking aircraft. The dispute arose due to dues payable by respondent No. 8, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., resulting in detention of aircraft leased to the airline at various airports. Representations by aircraft owners led to a decision by the Civil Aviation Department on 26.03.2013, communicated to the Airport Authority of India and various airports on 09.04.2013. The decision included directives for deregistration, release of aircraft to owners/lessors, and collection of parking charges from owners/lessors from the date of deregistration. The petitioner requested all concerned airports to intimate parking charges, but only Mumbai Airport responded. The matter proceeded before the Court to address these issues and related directions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the minutes of the meeting dated 26.03.2013, communicated by the Civil Aviation Department, constitute a binding decision requiring compliance by the Airport Authority and airports.
- Whether parking charges for deregistered aircraft should be communicated and paid to facilitate release and departure of aircraft.
- The authority and applicability of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations 2003 regarding detention of aircraft for non-payment of fees or charges.
- The appropriateness of directing all airports to communicate parking charges up to a specified date to enable aircraft to be flown out.
Arguments of the Parties
Airport Authority of India (Respondent No. 3)
- Initially contended that the minutes of the meeting were only minutes and not a binding decision.
- Relied on the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations 2003, para 10, to justify detention of aircraft for non-payment of fees or charges.
- Argued that parking charges calculation depends on knowing the date aircraft will be flown out.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
- Clarified that the minutes are indeed a binding decision, as evident from their plain reading and the accompanying covering letter.
Petitioner
- Requested directions to obtain intimation of parking charges from all airports for clearance and release of aircraft.
- On instructions, agreed that parking charges may be calculated up to 13.05.2013, the date aircraft would be flown out.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the minutes of the Civil Aviation Department meeting dated 26.03.2013, as communicated by the Government, constitute a binding decision directing the release of deregistered aircraft upon payment of parking charges. The presence of senior representatives of the Airport Authority of India at the meeting reinforced this binding nature. The Court found the Airport Authority’s initial denial of the decision’s binding force untenable. The Court emphasized the need for consistent communication among Government authorities to avoid wastage of judicial time. It accepted the petitioner’s proposal to calculate parking charges up to 13.05.2013 and directed all airports to communicate the charges to the petitioner within two days to facilitate payment and release of aircraft. The Court also noted that any delay beyond that date would require payment of additional charges. The petitioner’s earlier undertaking was discharged in view of these developments. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Airport Authority’s conduct and imposed costs on it for wasting judicial time.
Holding and Implications
The applications filed by the petitioner are allowed.
The Court directed all airports to communicate parking charges payable up to 13.05.2013 within two days to enable payment and release of aircraft as per the Government’s decision. The petitioner’s earlier undertaking stands discharged. The Airport Authority of India was burdened with costs of Rs. 7,500/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for wasting judicial time. The writ petition and related applications were disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court in case of difficulty in implementing the directions. No new precedent was set; the decision directly affects the parties by enforcing compliance with the Government’s policy and facilitating release of detained aircraft.
1. These applications seeking to bring on record the changed policy of the Government of India and the consequent directions coupled with directions seeking intimation of charges payable for parking aircrafts have been filed by the petitioner before us.
2. The history of the disputes is that on account of dues payable by the respondent No. 8.Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., Aircrafts leased to the said airlines were detained at different airports. It appears that representations were made by various owner on this account which has resulted in a decision being taken by the Civil Aviation Department Government of India on 26.03.2013 The minutes of this decision was duly communicated to the Airport Authority of India with copies marked to the different airports, under the cover of the letter dated 09.04.2013 The minutes in turn records the decision as under:—
“After detailed discussion, the following decisions were taken:
(i) DGCA shall, henceforth, seek views of concerned airport operators prior to deregistration of remaining KFA aircraft.
(ii) CBEC and DGCA shall reconcile list of remaining KFA aircraft registered with DGCA so as to confirm whether these aircraft are purely under financial/operating lease or some of them are jointly owned by Lessor and KFA.
(iii) The concerned airport operators shall release all the de-registered aircraft to the respective owners/lessors immediately so that these aircraft can fly out of the country. They are at liberty to collect parking charges from the owners/lessors from the date of de-registration. In case any of these de-registered aircrafts are subject matter of any court case between the owners/lessors and the airport operator, then the airport operator would take action as per the decision of court.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. We may note that in pursuance to the aforesaid decision the petitioner addressed communications to all the concerned parties including Airports requesting them to intimate the parking charges so that the same could be cleared. Only the Mumbai Airport respondent No. 5 is stated to have responded.
4. Learned counsel for the Airport Authority of India/respondent No. 3 has drawn our attention to the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations 2003 where para 10 reads as under:—
“Unless otherwise provided under the Act or by a general or special order in writing by the Central Government, the use of the movement area of Airport, by an aircraft shall be subject to payment of such landing, parking or housing fees or charges as are levied by the Authority from time to time. In the event of non-payment of the requisite fee or charges, the competent Authority shall have a right to detain or stop departure of the aircraft till the fees or charges are paid to Authority, which may include the current and accumulated dues”
(emphasis supplied)
5. It is submitted that the various dues from the Airlines were being demanded in pursuance of the aforesaid regulations. Initially it was sought to be contended by leanred counsel for Airport Authority of India/R-3 that the decision communicated by the Civil Aviation Department are only minutes and not a decision. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however, clarified that the minutes itself is a decision as is obvious from a plain reading of it. This is further communicated vide covering letter which leaves no manner of doubt. As per the letter, the minutes have been enclosed for suitable action by the Airport Authority of India.
6. Another aspect which we note is that the representatives of Airport Authority of India i.e the Chairman and Executive Director (FandA) were also present during the meeting where the minutes were drawn.
7. We may also notice another communication dated 3.5.2013 issued by the Airport Authority of India itself which states as under:—
“This office is in receipt of various letters requesting for intimation of parking charges payable at various airports including the private airports.
Since, necessary instructions have already been issued for release of aircrafts. You are requested to contact the concerned airport to ascertain the charges payable therein. The Finance Department of CHQ has no role to play especially in respect of aircrafts parked at the private airports.
This is for your information please”
8. The aforesaid letter shows that this communication addressed by the Executive Director (FandA) or R-3 to the petitioner itself states that necessary instructions have already been issued for release of aircrafts and that the petitioner should contact the concerned Airport Authority to ascertain the charges payable thereon
9. We really fail to appreciate the stand of the Airport Authority of India which should have conceded to the applications but instead has invited order on this aspect resulting in complete wastage of judicial time. It is only on the statement being made by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 3 states that in view of the statement the aircraft will be released. Different Government Authorities, to our mind, cannot speak in different languages and if this results in wastage of judicial time, it is necessary to put such a party to terms for wasting judicial time.
10. The only issue raised by learned counsel for the Mumbai Airport Authority is that calculation of the parking charges can take place only when the date on which the aircrafts would be flown out is known. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that parking charges may be calculated upto 13.05.2013 which would be the actual date on which the aircrafts would be flown out.
11. We consider it appropriate that to direct all the airports to communicate the charges to the petitioner for parking up to 13.05.2013 within two days from today and on payment of these charges and obtaining any other requisite permission aircraft can be flown out as per the Government decision.
12. Needless to say that if there is a delay of couple of days in the aircraft being flown out, the petitioner will pay even the remaining charges towards parking.
13. In view of the aforesaid developments the undertaking given by the petitioner earlier stands discharged.
14. The applications are accordingly allowed.
15. In view of what we have stated aforesaid we burden the Airport Authority of India with costs quantified at Rs. 7,500/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Cost be deposited within 15 days.
W.P(C) 7767/2012 and CM 19583/2012 (stay)
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that nothing realy survives in the present petition provided the aforesaid directions are complied with. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition and application as infurctuous with liberty to the petitioner to move in case of difficulty in implementation of the directions.
17. Dasti to counsel for parties under Signature of Court Master.
Alert