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.