The Delhi High Court in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking certain reliefs. The Court observed that merely because the petitioner has challenged or sent a representation to the DGCA on his alleged illegal termination, cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner’s termination would become a subject matter of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts:
Respondent No. 3 – Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (commonly known as “Indigo Airlines”) terminated the services of the Petitioner by a letter dated 03.05.2023. The petitioner on the issue had also submitted a representation to Respondent No. 1 – Union of India and Respondent No. 2 – DGCA, on the basis that the DGCA is a Controlling/ Regulatory Authority to all the airlines. Despite the representation dated 01.07.2023 submitted to the DGCA and Union of India, there was no response thereto by either of the respondents.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the termination of the petitioner by the impugned letter is contrary to the Director General of Civil Aviation Regulations and as such, ought to be quashed by this Court. He argued that reporting the fatigue is not a part of the Contract and is strictly within the purview of the DGCA. On the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition, learned counsel submits that since the termination itself was illegal and contrary to the aforesaid CAR issued by the DGCA, the representation which was submitted to the DGCA ought to have been considered and disposed of in accordance with the rules.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the issue of termination between the Petitioner as also Respondent No. 3, is based on the Contract between the parties and the DGCA is not a Regulatory Authority so far as the terms and conditions of the Contract are concerned. Further, the Court said that there is nothing in the contract document that points out the fact that Respondent No. 3 would fall within the ambit of the State or its instrumentality, as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that merely because the Petitioner has challenged or sent a representation to the DGCA on his alleged illegal termination, it cannot be construed to mean, that the Petitioner’s termination would become a subject matter of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The major or the original action of termination ought to be by an Authority, which falls within the definition as ascribed under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to be assailable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar action of termination by any other Authority unless they are performing a public duty, would not fall within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the termination is on the basis of a private Contract between the parties.
Case Title: Subhojit Chatterjee v Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Case No.: W.P.(C) 483/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Das and Mr. KB Rao
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki SPC with Mr. Francis Fernandes and Ms. Saakshi Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Gokul Sharma, G.P. for R-1 and R-2.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
