Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th February, 2020
PRAVASI LEGAL CELL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jose Abraham and Mr. M.P. Srivignesh, Advs.
Through: Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel for R-1 and 2 with Mr. Tushar Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advs. for R-3
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR O R D E R 07.02.2020
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers: “(a) Declare that the Rule 43 of the Aircraft (Public health) Rules, 1954 is illegal and unconstitutional; 2020:DHC:915-DB (b) Issue an appropriate writ or order quashing the Rule 43 of the Aircraft (Public health) Rules, 1954 and
(c) Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon’ble
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that main grievance ventilated by this petitioner is about the advance 48 hours intimation whenever any dead body or human remains or ashes of cremated bodies required to be given to the Health Offices of the airport of arrival in terms of Rule 43 of Aircraft (Public Health) Rules, 1954. For the ready referenced, Rule 43 of the Aircraft (Public Health) Rules, 1954 enacted under Aircraft Act, 1934 reads as under:
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 submits that detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.1. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said affidavit read as under:
4. In view of the aforesaid counter affidavit, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that advance intimation of 48 hours is not a sine qua non provided concerned person is supplying the aforesaid four documents as stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit.
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions and looking at aforesaid paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1, the condition of advance intimation of 48 hours provided under Rule 43 of the Aircraft (Public Health) Rules, 1954 can always be waived by the respondents.
6. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition and the same is therefore disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations.
CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 07, 2020