Delhi High Court
Senior Citizens Forum Through Its ... vs Union Of India & Others on 2 December, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 2nd December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 4777/2012 & CM No.9884/2012 (for directions)
SENIOR CITIZEN'S FORUM
THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT M.M.S. RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. Jitender Ratta,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Avneesh Garg, Advs. for R-3 to R-5.
Mr. K. Raghavcharyulu with Mr. Kailash
Pandey, Mr. Ranjeet Singh & Ms.
Arunima Pal, Advs. for R-6.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), alleges, (i) that aviation fuel has to be tested to
ensure that the water content in the same is within the prescribed norms and
standards; (ii) such testing has to be done at various stages i.e. at the laboratory
of the Oil Company, at the storage facility of the Oil Company, at the Airport
and finally on the field before fuelling of the aircraft; (iii) that the respondent
no.2 Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has in the year 1995
prescribed the method for such testing; (iv) that such tests are vital for the
safety of the flights in as much as free water in aviation fuel produces ice-
plugging and filter-icing of the fuel system at low temperatures encountered at
high altitudes, causing reduction in fuel flow leading to stoppage of fuel flow
and consequent partial or total loss of engine power; (v) that the said test
involves use of Water Detecting Capsules (WDCs); (vi) the DGCA has
however allowed procurement of WDCs which do not conform or adhere to the
prescribed test methods; (vii) that one of the suppliers of WDCs namely
respondent no.6 Kaveri Baag Corporation was approved by the DGCA /
Director of Air Worthiness in complete and blatant disregard of the testing
methods prescribed; (viii) in the year 2008, DGCA stopped granting the
approval and renewal of licenses to WDC suppliers and permitted the oil
companies and airlines to procure, test and use WDCs as per their Quality
Control Manual approved and renewed by DGCA; (ix) thus the oil companies
and airlines were required to procure WDCs on their own, thereby passing the
onus of ensuring that WDCs met the requisite standard, on to the oil
companies; (x) that DGCA could not have so abdicated its responsibility; and,
(xi) that the oil companies namely Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
impleaded as respondents no.3 to 5 are violating the DGCA test method,
thereby jeopardizing the safety of the flights / airlines endangering the lives of
millions of air passengers.
2. The petition seeks the relief of, (i) holding of an inquiry by an
independent agency as to why a sub-standard, non-compliant product not
meeting the DGCA test standards and norms was allowed to be used for the last
ten years and is continued to be allowed to be used; (ii) of quashing of the
Corrigendum dated 14th September, 1995 to the DGCA Test Method of 1995;
and, (iii) seeking a direction that the quality, efficiency and standard of Water
Detecting Capsules used for detecting free water in aviation fuel shall be
regulated and monitored by DGCA alone as was being done till the year 2008.
3. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. The respondent
no.6 Kaveri Baag Corporation and the three respondents oil companies have
filed their counter affidavits. The UOI and DGCA have also filed their short
affidavit. Rejoinders have been filed by the petitioner.
4. We partly heard the counsels on 27th August, 2014 and were intrigued
about the source of knowledge of such technical matters by the petitioner which
describes itself as a voluntary organization of senior citizens from all walks of
life and which though in the past has not filed any PIL, but claimed to have
filed the instant petition on the basis of information received by its members
from "a person employed with one of the oil companies during casual
conversation". A doubt arose in our mind as to how knowledge of such
technical matters as pleaded in the petition could be acquired during casual
conversation. No particulars in this regard were given in the petition. We as
such asked the counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing the
source of information and explaining the locus of the petitioner to file the
petition.
5. In compliance therewith, an affidavit of the President of the petitioner
who is 78 years of age and who has not disclosed his educational qualification /
vocation in life in praesenti or in the past has been filed all that is stated therein
is that the petition was filed on the basis of information received from one Late
Mr. Surajit Chaliha, former Chairman and Managing Director of Oil India Ltd.
during casual conversation. However the counsel for the petitioner is unable to
inform as to when the said Mr. Chaliha died. The doubts expressed by us thus
remain.
6. The sole proprietor of the respondent no.6 Kaveri Baag Corporation in
his counter affidavit has pleaded that the petition is filed at the behest of one
Mr. Kalra who is one of the leading members of the petitioner and a business
rival and competitor of the respondent no.6. The petitioner in the rejoinder of
course has denied that the said Mr. Kalra is its member or that the petition has
been filed at his behest.
7. Though it is the plea of the respondent no.6 that such doubts having
arisen, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone but during the
hearing on 19th November, 2014 it further transpired that the procedure of
testing as in vogue prior to the year 2008 was restored as far back as in the year
2012 and the grievance even if any of the petitioner on the said account no
longer survives. Of course the counsel for the petitioner contends that the said
change was brought about for the reason of the petitioner intervening and states
that now he is confining the relief claimed in the petition, to the holding of an
inquiry as to why the testing procedure was changed.
8. The counsel for the DGCA also has stated that the role of the DGCA is
regulatory, only of setting standards and it is not possible for the DGCA to
personally carry out the tests each time an aircraft is fueled. It is further argued
that this is the responsibility of the airlines and whenever DGCA finds the
airlines to be not performing the duty, it takes action against the airlines as well
as the oil companies.
9. We do not in the circumstances aforesaid deem it appropriate to order the
inquiry sought for and dispose of the petition. Though we have entertained
doubts as to the bona fides of the petitioner but refrain from imposing any
costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER O2, 2014
„pp‟
