Full Text
Translation output
.J' (Common Orders)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA No.732/2012 & CM No.18729/2012 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Digvlnay Rai, Adv.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA No.732/2012 & CM No.18729/2012 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Appellant
Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Digvlnay Rai, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain along with Ms. Pushpa, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Meghna Mishra along with Mr. Varun Kumar and Ms. Salonii Chowdhary, Advs. for R-3.
W.P.(C) No.5818/2012 & CM Nos.18294/2012, 18721/2012, 2987/2013
KFW IPEX-BANK GMBH
Through:
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain along with Ms. Pushpa, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Meghna Mishra along with Mr. Varun Kumar and Ms. Salonii Chowdhary, Advs. for R-3.
W.P.(C) No.5818/2012 & CM Nos.18294/2012, 18721/2012, 2987/2013
KFW IPEX-BANK GMBH
Through:
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Raj Kumar Dubey alogn with
Mr. Manish Mishra, Advs. Respondent Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Digvlnay Rai, Adv. for AAI.
Ms. Anjana Gosain along with Ms. Pushpa, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Meghna Mishra along with Mr. Varun Kumar and Ms. Salonii Chowdhary, Advs. for R-4.
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Raj Kumar Dubey alogn with
Mr. Manish Mishra, Advs. Respondent Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Digvlnay Rai, Adv. for AAI.
Ms. Anjana Gosain along with Ms. Pushpa, Advs. for UOI.
Ms. Meghna Mishra along with Mr. Varun Kumar and Ms. Salonii Chowdhary, Advs. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
11.04.2013 The petitioner approached this Court with the following
2013:DHC:6983-DB prayers: a.) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the detained
ATR 72-212A aircrafts bearing Manufacturer's Serial
NO.723 and 725 and permit the petitioner to fly the said aircrafts firstly to Hosur for technical overhaul and eventually out of India without creating any
> obstruction or levying any demand; b.) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to do all acts, deeds and things necessary for ensuring that the petitioner's aircrafts being two ATR72-212A aircrafts bearing
Manufacturer's Serial No.723 and 725 are permitted to fly out of India; c.) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay any outstanding dues against the two ATR 72-212A aircrafts being MSN
725 and 723 for the period prior to de-registration of the aircrafts; d.) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned/illegal demand of the respondents Nos.3 &
4 on the petitioner for payment of dues outstanding against the two ATR 72-212A aircrafts of the petitioner bearing MSN 723 and 725 which are owed by the erstwhile operator of the aircrafts to
A respondent Nos. 3 &. 4; e.) Issue a writ, order or direction directing respondent
Nos.3 and 4 to compensate the petitioner for the financial losses suffered by it during the period of illegal detention of the aircrafts as stated in paragraph 37 supra. f.) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.
Along with writ petition, CM Noll494/2012 was filed for a direction to release of two ATR 72 212A aircrafts bearing manufacturer's serial No.723 and 725. Vide order dated 26.9.2012, the learned Single Judge, while directing the release of the above two aircrafts, ordered the petitioner herein to furnish two separate bank guarantees in favour of the Registrar General of this Court for a sum of Rs.17,09,10,120/- and Rs.15,86,577/- in respect of two aircrafts.
Vide order dated 05.11.2012, this Court had stayed the award. In the result, the said aircrafts have not been released as of today in spite of the fact that two bank guarantees as directed by the learned Single Judge have been furnished.
When this petition was taken up, the petitioner has made statement that the entire issue is under consideration by the
Government and therefore, the writ petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter as the matter is being reconsidered by the
Government.
In view of the above submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the appeal is also closed. The bank guarantees, which are furnished by the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge and which is the subject matter of the appeal can be withdrawn by the writ petition.
We make it clear that vide this order of withdrawal, the petitioner is not entitled to release of the two aircrafts in question unless a decision is taken by the Airport Authority of India/Government on the basis of the decision of the Government order. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition is withdrawn only on the ground that the Government is reconsidering, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to question in the event such an order/decision of the Government is passed.
In view of the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the LPA is dismissed as infructuous.
CHIEF Ji APRIL 11, 2013 pmc .K. JAIN, J.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
11.04.2013 The petitioner approached this Court with the following
2013:DHC:6983-DB prayers: a.) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the detained
ATR 72-212A aircrafts bearing Manufacturer's Serial
NO.723 and 725 and permit the petitioner to fly the said aircrafts firstly to Hosur for technical overhaul and eventually out of India without creating any
> obstruction or levying any demand; b.) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to do all acts, deeds and things necessary for ensuring that the petitioner's aircrafts being two ATR72-212A aircrafts bearing
Manufacturer's Serial No.723 and 725 are permitted to fly out of India; c.) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay any outstanding dues against the two ATR 72-212A aircrafts being MSN
725 and 723 for the period prior to de-registration of the aircrafts; d.) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned/illegal demand of the respondents Nos.3 &
4 on the petitioner for payment of dues outstanding against the two ATR 72-212A aircrafts of the petitioner bearing MSN 723 and 725 which are owed by the erstwhile operator of the aircrafts to
A respondent Nos. 3 &. 4; e.) Issue a writ, order or direction directing respondent
Nos.3 and 4 to compensate the petitioner for the financial losses suffered by it during the period of illegal detention of the aircrafts as stated in paragraph 37 supra. f.) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.
Along with writ petition, CM Noll494/2012 was filed for a direction to release of two ATR 72 212A aircrafts bearing manufacturer's serial No.723 and 725. Vide order dated 26.9.2012, the learned Single Judge, while directing the release of the above two aircrafts, ordered the petitioner herein to furnish two separate bank guarantees in favour of the Registrar General of this Court for a sum of Rs.17,09,10,120/- and Rs.15,86,577/- in respect of two aircrafts.
Vide order dated 05.11.2012, this Court had stayed the award. In the result, the said aircrafts have not been released as of today in spite of the fact that two bank guarantees as directed by the learned Single Judge have been furnished.
When this petition was taken up, the petitioner has made statement that the entire issue is under consideration by the
Government and therefore, the writ petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter as the matter is being reconsidered by the
Government.
In view of the above submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the appeal is also closed. The bank guarantees, which are furnished by the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge and which is the subject matter of the appeal can be withdrawn by the writ petition.
We make it clear that vide this order of withdrawal, the petitioner is not entitled to release of the two aircrafts in question unless a decision is taken by the Airport Authority of India/Government on the basis of the decision of the Government order. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition is withdrawn only on the ground that the Government is reconsidering, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to question in the event such an order/decision of the Government is passed.
In view of the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the LPA is dismissed as infructuous.
CHIEF Ji APRIL 11, 2013 pmc .K. JAIN, J.
JUDGMENT