Delhi High Court
Sachin Solanki vs Union Of India on 2 July, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: March 04, 2024
Decided on: July 02, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 7952/2014
SACHIN SOLANKI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.S. Solanki, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with
Mr. Shivam Singh and Mr.
Gokul Sharma, Advocates for
UOI
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing
the order dated 23.06.2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned
order") vide reference no 8/2/2012-L-II whereby the
respondent/Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) rejected the
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 1
representations for seeking exemption for the issuance of the
Commercial Pilot License (CPL) to the petitioner.
2. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner claimed to
be the youngest commercial pilot and has obtained the required
certification from the International Airline Training Academy
(IATA), Tucson, Arizona, USA after completion of training. The
petitioner cleared the Class-II medical examination for obtaining
Commercial Pilot License (CPL) on 07.05.2006. The petitioner
appeared before Air Force Central Medical Establishment (AFCME)
and was certified fit for Class-I medical assessment on initial issue of
CPL. The petitioner appeared for Class-I medical exam at Air Force
Central Medical Establishment (AFCME) on 02.01.2007 and was
declared temporarily unfit on account of abnormality in EEG and
incomplete RBBB on ECG (R). The respondent recommended
further medical tests including MRI Brain, 2-D Eco Cardiography,
Doppler study and opinion of Neurophysician. The petitioner was
again examined on 20.01.2007 by AFCME and was declared unfit on
20.01.2007 and opinion of a Neurophysician and fitness certificate
was asked for. The petitioner submitted MRI report along with a
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 2
report dated 31.01.2007 prepared by Dr. Udaya S. Sharma,
Neurologist wherein it was stated that "incidental EEG abnormality
detected" with conclusion of "asymptotic EEG abnormality" and no
fitness certificate was required as the petitioner was never sick. The
petitioner was issued a certificate of fitness of Class-I medical
assessment on 06.02.2007 which was opined by the respondent as not
final. The certificate was issued subject to final assessment by the
Director General Medical Services (HQ).
2.1 The petitioner at that time had already left for IATA, Arizona,
USA for completion of Commercial Pilot License course. The
respondent vide letter dated 16.08.2007 declared the petitioner
permanently unfit for flying on basis of abnormal EEG in medical
examination of the petitioner conducted on 06.02.2007 at AFCME
with the note that the petitioner can appeal to Director Medical
Services (CA) against the decision of unfitness within 90 days of
receipt of the letter dated 16.08.2007 and the appeal should be
supported by opinion of two senior specialists and all relevant
investigation. The petitioner could not prefer the appeal as he was at
IATA, USA at that time and accordingly, the father of the petitioner
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 3
in letter dated 23.08.2007 addressed to the Director Medical Services
(Civil Aviation) stated that the petitioner was found fit on 06.02.2007
during medical examination for Class-I. The father of the petitioner
vide letter dated 19.09.2007 addressed to Director General Civil
Aviation stated that the petitioner reserved his right to file appeal as
the petitioner at time of issuance of letter dated 16.08.2007 was under
training at International Airline Training Academy (IATA) and
further vide letter dated 08.04.2008 sought further time for filing
appeal till June, 2008. The father of the petitioner vide letter dated
17.10.2008 informed the respondent/DGCA about return of the
petitioner back to India after completion of Commercial Pilot
Certification course at USA and permission was sought for filing of
appeal.
2.2 The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director Medical
Services (CA) in month of June, 2009 and along with appeal,
submitted opinion of two Experts. It was also stated in appeal that the
petitioner had undergone 2 EEG medical Tests at Holy Family
Hospital, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and Apollo hospital and
the petitioner was confirmed to be normal in reports. The respondent
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 4
vide Reference No AV/22025/10/DMS/MED dated 21.08.2009
intimated the petitioner that after due consideration, the appeal
medical examination was not agreed to. The petitioner being
aggrieved filed writ petition bearing no W.P. (C) 12262/2009 titled as
Sachin Solanki V Union of India before this court to challenge the
letter/Medical Assessment dated 16.08.2007 issued by Sh. J.K.
Srivastava, Gp. Capt, Director Medical Services (Civil Aviation) and
order dated 21.08.2009 passed by Sh. J.K. Srivastava, Gp. Capt,
Director Medical Services (Civil Aviation) in appeal and the said writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide
order dated 17.02.2011. The petitioner being aggrieved by order
dated 17.02.2011 preferred LPA bearing no. 289/2011 titled as
Sachin Solanki V Union of India which was allowed by the
Division Bench of this Court and the respondent/DGCA was directed
to afford an opportunity of hearing after giving due notice to the
petitioner and dispose of the appeal within 08 weeks.
2.3 The petitioner again underwent medical examination of Class-I
at Air Force Central Medical Establishment (AFCME) and was
issued a medical certificate on 25.04.2012 after completion of his
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 5
medical examination and was declared as ―has met prescribed
Medical Standards‖.
2.4 The petitioner thereafter made representations on 09.07.2012,
29.11.2012, 04.12.2012 to the respondent/DGCA for seeking
exemptions for the issuance of Commercial Pilot License (CPL)
which were not responded by the respondent. The petitioner also
sought personal appointment with the Director General of the
Directorate of Civil Aviation (DGCA), New Delhi on 11.12.2012 and
filed a chronological data of events on 17.12.2012 which was also not
responded by the respondent. The petitioner again visited the
Director of Licensing, DGCA and sought exemption/waiver of
conditions for the issuance of Commercial Pilot License (CPL) as per
Rule 160 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
2.5 The respondent through office of Director General of Civil
Aviation vide communication bearing reference no 8/2/2012 L-II
dated 28.05.2013 informed the petitioner that request of the petitioner
for seeking exemption for the issuance of Commercial Pilot License
(CPL) was examined and was not acceded to by the competent
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 6
authority. The relevant portion of the communication/order dated
28.05.2013 is produced as under:-
Reference may please be made to your letter dated
04.12.2012 on the above subject.
Your request for seeking exemptions for the issuance of
Commercial Pilot License (CPL) has been examined and
the same was not acceded to by Competent Authority. For
issuance of CPL, IR requirements are laid down in Section
J & O of Schedule-II of Aircraft Rules 1937. Copyof
relevant regulation are enclosed herewith for reference.
2.6 The petitioner being aggrieved by Communication dated
28.05.2013 filed writ petition bearing no W.P.(C) 7053/2013 titled as
Sachin Solanki V Union of India before this Court which was
dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2013. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2013 filed an appeal before this
Court bearing LPA no 985/2013 which was allowed vide order dated
21.02.2014 by the Division Bench of this Court whereby
communication/order dated 28.05.2013 was ordered to be set aside. It
was observed as under:-
On a plain reading of the above document, it is evident that
no reasons whatsoever have been ascribed for not acceding
to the request made by the appellant.
In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order as
also the order dated 28.05.2013 and direct the Director
General of Civil Aviation to pass a reasoned order after
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 7
considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as
also the circumstance that the requirement of an EEG has
been done away with by virtue of a notice dated 02.11.2011.
The Director General of Civil Aviation shall also take in
consideration the fact that the time that was consumed
between the taking of the written examination and the date
on which the appellant was declared medically fit was
apparently not on account of the appellant but because of
the pendency of the matter before this court as also the
consideration by the respondent. The reasoned order be
passed within four weeks from today.
The appeal is allowed as above.
2.7 The petitioner again made representation dated 04.04.2014 along
with documents to the Director (Licensing) Directorate of Civil
Aviation for seeking exemption for the issuance of Commercial Pilot
License (CPL). The respondent through D.C. Sharma, Director
(Training & Licensing) for Director General of Civil Aviation
rejected the representation dated 04.04.2014 submitted by the
petitioner vide impugned order dated 23.06.2014. The relevant
portion of impugned order dated 23.06.2014 is reproduced verbatim
as under:-
As per Section A Schedule II of Aircraft Rules 1937 the
date of application, shall be the date of receipt of
application in the office of the Director-General on the date
of application applicant has to meet the all the
requirements of the relevant section of the Sch II of
Aircraft Rules 1937. The applicant never submitted the
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 8
documents for issuance of license. However the request of
applicant to consider the date 26.03.2009 for conversion of
his foreign license to Indian License has further reviewed in
light of the Court Order and it has been concluded that as
the applicant was not medically fit on 26.03.2009 as per
existing rule requirements on that day therefore his request
cannot be considered and also on date 25.04.2012 when he
was declared medically fit he was not meeting the other
requirements of Section J Schedule II of Aircraft Rule1937
for issue of CPL.
In view of the above since the applicant was not meeting the
requirement of issue of CPL on the above mention dates
and as per Aircraft Rules 1937 DGCA is not empowered to
grant exemptions as requested by the applicant, the case of
Sh. Sachin Solanki cannot be considered for issue of CPL.
2.8 The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 23.06.2014
on grounds that the respondent has failed to abide by the order passed
in LPA no 985/2013 as per Section A of Schedule-II of Aircraft
Rules 1937, the date of application shall be the date of receipt of
application in the Office of the Directorate General. The petitioner
never submitted the documents for issuance of License and as such
the question of meeting the requirement on an earlier date does not
arise. The respondent has considered 26.03.2009 as date for issuance
of license while as per order passed in LPA bearing no 289/201, the
petitioner was declared medically fit on 25.04.2012 as the petitioner
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 9
was not meeting with the requirement of Section J of Schedule-II of
Aircraft Rules, 1937 and the respondent had to consider the actual
date of fitness i.e.25.04.2012 and from that date, the period should be
reckoned but the same was not taken into consideration while passing
the impugned order. The petitioner had gone immense training for
more than 1 year and 10 months in the United States of America
(USA) and has passed the practical and theoretical exams. The
petitioner has crossed all stages of Commercial Pilot License i.e.
Student Pilot License (SPL), Private Pilot License (PPL) and the
Commercial Pilot License which is the last and ultimate stage to
become a trained commercial pilot. The petitioner further
successfully completed the Class-I medical fitness and became
entitled to the conversion of his commercial pilot license. The
petitioner has already undertaken to undergo recency test for flying
which is the only requisite for getting/converting the US commercial
pilot license to Indian Pilot License. The respondent should have
exercised discretion under Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 which
does not confer unbridled power upon the respondent to exempt or
not at its will. The provision under para 3.2 is in conflict with Rule
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 10
160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner does not lack any
qualifications required for grant of a Commercial Pilot License. The
petitioner has qualified the essentials for grant of a Commercial Pilot
License which are Written Examinations and Flying Training
Examinations. The petitioner was denied consideration only on the
ground of his being late in applying for issue of Commercial Pilot
License on the basis of these essential qualifications. The petitioner
has filed the present writ petition with the prayer which is produced
verbatim as under:-
a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the
impugned order dated 23.06.2014 vide reference
No.8/2/2012-L-II whereby the respondent rejected the
representations for seeking exemptions for the issuance of
Commercial Pilot License (CPL) to the petitioner;
b) further direct the respondent to allow the exemptions as
prayed in various representations of the petitioner;
c) Quash para 3.2 of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR)
dated 6.3.2007 Series B Part-2 as ultra wires to Rule 160 of
Air Craft Rules 1937.
d) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit to the amended petition
wherein stated that the application of the petitioner for seeking
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 11
exemption was rejected on sufficient grounds keeping in view the
safety of the aircraft operations. The petitioner was not medically fit
on 14.06.2009 as per applicable Regulation. The petitioner never
submitted his documents for issuance of CPL/IR and as such
qualification/requirements for the issuance of CPL/IR could not be
ascertained. The petitioner was informed at every stage vide office
letters no. 8/2/2012- L-II dated 01.11.12, 07.12.12 and 28.05.2013
respectively.
3.1 The respondent in reply to grounds of appeal stated that the
respondent has complied with the order dated 21.02.2014 passed in
LPA no 985/2013 by issuing the impugned order dated 23.06.2014.
The petitioner has never submitted documents for issuance of license
and accordingly question of suitability for his candidature doesn't
arise. The respondent considered actual date of fitness i.e. 25.04.2012
while passing the impugned order dated 23.06.2014 but the applicant
was not meeting the requirements as mentioned in Section J,
Schedule II of Aircraft Rules, 1937 for issue of CPL. The petitioner
had undergone training in USA for CPL but he was not meeting the
requirements for issue of Indian CPL as stipulated in Aircraft Rules,
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 12
1937. The respondent issued the impugned order dated 23.06.2014 by
considering all the facts submitted by the petitioner through
representation/writ petition. The petitioner was required to fulfil other
requirements to get Indian CPL as per Aircraft Rules, 1937 besides
recency (preceding 06 months flying experience) requirement. The
petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2013 was advised to comply with
the requirements as stipulated in Aircraft Rules, 1937. The
respondent issued a speaking order dated 23.06.2014. The petitioner
was re-examined for medical fitness and was found fit but it does not
indicate that the petitioner was medically fit as on 06.02.2007 as per
the applicable regulations in vogue. The respondent/DGCA is not
empowered to grant exemptions under Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules,
1937. The request of the petitioner for issuance of CPL was not
considered keeping in view of basic requirement of currency of
flying experience and knowledge for the safety of Operations. The
petitioner was declared permanently unfit on 16.08.2007 based upon
applicable regulations. The petitioner was declared medically fit on
25.04.2012 but he was not meeting with other requirements of
Section J, Schedule II of Aircraft Rules, 1937.The petitioner might be
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 13
fulfilling requirements of Written Examinations and Flying Training
experience on a back date but the petitioner never submitted requisite
documents. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to counter affidavit filed in
response to amended petition wherein reiterated facts stated in the
petition/amended petition and stated that the respondent should have
disclosed in order dated 28.05.2013 about its incompetency to grant
exemption. Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 empowers the
respondent to grant exemptions. The petitioner was medically fit on
16.06.2009 by virtue of medical certificate Class-I issued to him on
06.02.2007 by AFCME. The petitioner met with all qualifications
and requirements at the relevant time and since he was not declared
medically fit by the respondent, as a result he was not able to process
for the purpose of getting CPL License.
4.1 The petitioner in rejoinder to reply to the grounds stated that the
petitioner filed documents with the request of exemptions in his letter
dated 04.04.2014 and with his application under Rule 160 of Aircraft
Rules, 1937. The respondent being an authority to deal with the
licenses and the training of the pilot is duly empowered to grant
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 14
licenses and to grant the exemptions as per the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
The petitioner was deemed to be qualified on 25.04.2012 and as such
there was no reason not to grant exemption to the petitioner. The
respondent intentionally did not comply with the order dated
21.02.2013 in LPA no 985/2013 passed by this Court. The
respondent/DGCA is empowered to grant exemptions under Rule 160
of Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner was fit vide Class-1 medical
fitness certificate dated 06.02.2007 and was again found medically fit
for Class-I fitness on 25.04.2012 and was having all requirements for
getting the license. It was prayed that the petitioner be granted relief
as prayed for.
5. Sh. L. S. Solanki, the counsel for the petitioner advanced oral
arguments and also filed written submissions. It was argued that the
petitioner had gone to USA for flying training after successful
medical examination of Class-I vide medical certificate dated
06.02.2007 issued by Air Force Central Medical Establishment
(AFCME). The respondent sent a letter dated 16.08.2007 declaring
the petitioner medically permanently unfit on the basis of abnormal
EEG. The petitioner after returning from flying training, appealed
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 15
against the said order 16.08.2007 which was rejected by the
respondent. The petitioner was subjected to another Class-I medical
examination at Air Force Central Medical Establishment (AFCME)
in pursuance of order dated 18.08.2011 passed by this court in LPA
no 289/2011 which was filed after dismissal of writ petition bearing
W.P.(C) no 12262/2009 vide order dated 17.02.2011 and the
petitioner passed the Class-I medical test vide certificate dated
25.02.2012. It was further argued that the respondent did not comply
with the order passed by this court and rejected the representation
preferred by the petitioner. The respondent filed LPA no 985/2013
consequent to dismissal of Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) no
7053/2013 and LPA no. 985/2011 was allowed vide order dated
21.02.2014. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
respondent did not comply with the orders dated 18.08.2011 and
21.02.2014 passed by this court. The petitioner in pursuance of order
dated 21.02.2014 submitted representation dated 04.04.2014 to the
respondent for seeking exemption under Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules,
1937 which was rejected vide impugned order dated 23.06.2014. The
EEG test was done away with or discontinued vide public notice no.
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 16
AV/22025/1/JDMS/Med. dated 02.11.2011. The petitioner had
applied for exemption vide various representations dated 09.07.2012,
29.11.2012, 04.12.2012, 11.12.2012, 12.12.2012, 17.12.2012 and
05.03.2013 but the respondent/DGCA did not comply with order
dated 21.02.2014 and rejected the representation vide the impugned
order. The respondent despite impugned order stated that the
respondent is not competent to allow the exemption under Rule 160
of Aircraft Rules, 1937. The respondent/DGCA is competent to
decide the exemption as per the abovementioned Rule. The petitioner
had undergone number of medical tests in India and USA. The
counsel for the petitioner argued that action of the respondent in not
allowing the exemptions under Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules,1937 is
arbitrary, biased and illegal and against the directions given by this
Court particularly vide order dated 21.02.2014.
5.1 The counsel for the petitioner also filed additional written
submissions wherein raised three arguments that the
respondent/DGCA was not competent to decide the exemption under
Rule 160 as per the rule 3.1 and 3.2 of Civil Aviation Requirements
(CAR) dated 06.03.2007 as the respondent is required to forward the
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 17
application for the approval of the Central Government along with its
recommendations after technical evaluation of the application by the
concerned Directorate; the petitioner was not medically unfit on the
day of passing the impugned order dated 23.06.2014 and the
respondent has not complied with the order dated 21.02.2014 passed
by this court in LPA bearing no 985/2013. It was argued that the
petition be allowed as prayed for.
6. The counsel for the respondent advanced oral arguments and also
submitted written submissions. It is argued that the petitioner vide
letter dated 04.12.2012 requested for exemption of certain conditions
as reproduced herein above for issuance of Commercial Pilot License
(CPL). The respondent did not accede to the request of the petitioner
for exemption which was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated
28.05.2013 and vide said letter, the petitioner was advised to meet the
requirements as stipulated in Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner
though had undergone training in USA for CPL but the petitioner was
not meeting the requirements for issue of Indian CPL as stipulated in
Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner was not medically fit on
16.06.2009 as per applicable Rules as the petitioner on the said date
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 18
never submitted documents for issuance of CPL, IR and hence, it
could not be predicted whether the petitioner was meeting requisite
qualifications/requirements. The respondent is not empowered to
grant exemptions as requested by the petitioner which was
communicated to petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2014 after
complying with the order dated 21.02.2014 passed in LPA no.
985/2013. It was further argued that it was mentioned in order dated
23.06.2014 that the date of application cannot be considered as
26.03.2009 as at that time the petitioner was not meeting the
requirements (medically unfit) as per the existing Rules and
Regulations. The respondent has considered Class-I fitness medical
assessment dated 25.04.2012 issued by the respondent while passing
the order dated 23.06.2014 but the petitioner on that day did not meet
the other requirements of Section J, Schedule II of Aircraft Rules,
1937 for issue of CPL. The respondent complied with the order dated
18.08.2011 passed by this court and the petitioner was re-examined
for medical fitness and was found fit but it doesn't indicate that the
petitioner was medically fit as on 06.02.2007. The petitioner never
submitted documents pertaining to the requirement of Written
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 19
Examinations and Flying Training Examinations. It was also argued
that currency of flying experience and knowledge are basic
requirements for the safety of Operations at time of issuance of Pilot
License. The petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2013 was advised to
meet the requirements as stipulated in Aircraft Rules, 1937. The
respondent/DGCA is not empowered to grant exemption under Rule
160. It was argued that the petition be dismissed being devoid of
merits.
7. The respondent alleged that the Central Government as per Rule
160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 is empowered to exempt any aircraft or
person from operation of Rules either wholly or partially and
Directorate General of Civil Aviation is not competent to grant such
exemption. Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 deals with general
power of the Central Government to exempt any aircraft or person
from operation of Rules either wholly or partially. It reads as under:-
GENERAL POWER TO EXEMPT
160- The Central Government may, by general or special
order in writing exempt any aircraft or class of aircraft or
any person or class of persons from the operation of these
rules, either wholly or partially, subject to such conditions,
if any, as may be specified in such order.
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 20
7.1 The Appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Director Medical
Services (CA) in month of June, 2009 to impugn the letter dated
16.08.2007 whereby the petitioner was declared permanently unfit
for flying on the basis of abnormal EEG in medical examination of
the petitioner conducted on 06.02.2007 at AFCME was decided by J.
K. Shrivastava, Gp. Capt., Directorate of Medical Services (CA) for
Director General Civil Aviation vide Reference no
AV/22025/10/DMS/MED dated 21.08.2009 intimating the petitioner
that after due consideration, the appeal medical examination was not
agreed to. The respondent further through office of the Director
General of Civil Aviation vide communication bearing reference no
8/2/2012 L-II dated 28.05.2013 did not accede to the request of the
petitioner for exemption for the issuance of Commercial Pilot
License (CPL). The respondent through D. C. Sharma, Director
(Training & Licensing) for Director General of Civil Aviation vide
impugned order dated 23.06.2014 again rejected the representation
dated 04.04.2014 submitted by the petitioner. The above referred
communications only reflect that respondent through Director of
Civil Aviation only dealt with various representations preferred by
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 21
the petition for seeking exemption from Commercial Pilot License.
Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 only deals with general power to
exempt any aircraft or person from operation of Rules either wholly
or partially. It clearly reflects that the DGCA as per mandate of Rule
160 is not authorized or competent to grant exemption to the
petitioner from grant of Commercial Pilot License. There is nothing
on record to comprehend that the Central Government has ever
authorized the DGCA to grant exemption to any person including
from issuance of Commercial Pilot License (CPL). It may be true that
during entire communication with the respondent, the petitioner was
not informed about competence of the Central Government to grant
exemption from issuance of Commercial Pilot License but it does not
dilute rigor of Rule 160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937. The application or
any other communication submitted by the petitioner for grant of
exemption from Commercial Pilot License was never forwarded or
submitted to Central Government for consideration of exemption
from Commercial Pilot License. The DGCA may be part of the
Central Government but in absence of either express or implied
authority to grant exemption from issuance of Commercial Pilot
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 22
License, it cannot be equated with the Central Government for
purpose of Rule 160. There is force in argument advanced by the
counsel for the respondent that the Central Government is only
competent to grant exemption from Commercial Pilot License.
8. It is apparent that the petitioner was granted Commercial Pilot
Certification from the International Airline Training Academy
(IATA), Tucson, Arizona, USA. The petitioner on 07.05.2006
cleared Class-II medical examination for obtaining Commercial Pilot
License (CPL) but on 02.01.2007, he was declared temporarily unfit
on account of abnormality in EEG and incomplete RBBB on ECG
(R) in Class-I medical exam. The petitioner was again declared unfit
on 20.01.2007. The petitioner was issued a certificate of fitness of
Class-I medical assessment on 06.02.2007 subject to final assessment
by the Director General Medical Services (HQ). The petitioner vide
communication/letter dated 16.08.2007 was declared permanently
unfit for flying on basis of abnormal EEG in medical examination
conducted on 06.02.2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the
Director Medical Services (CA) in month of June, 2009 but the
appeal medical examination was not agreed to which was
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 23
communicated to the petitioner vide Reference no
AV/22025/10/DMS/MED dated 21.08.2009. The petitioner filed a
writ petition bearing W.P.(C) no 12262/2009 titled as Sachin
Solanki V Union of India to challenge the letter/Medical
Assessment dated 16.08.2007 and order dated 21.08.2009 but the writ
petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2011. The petitioner
preferred LPA bearing no. 289/2011 titled as Sachin Solanki V
Union of India and vide order dated 18.08.2011, the
respondent/DGCA was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing
after giving due notice to the petitioner. The requirement of an EEG
was done away by notice dated 02.11.2011. The petitioner again
underwent medical examination of Class-I and a medical certificate
on 25.04.2012 was issued wherein the petitioner was declared as
―has met prescribed Medical Standards‖. The petitioner thereafter
made various representations including representation dated
05.03.2013 to the respondent/DGCA for seeking exemptions from
issuance of Commercial Pilot License (CPL). The respondent vide
communication dated 28.05.2013 did not accede to the request of the
petitioner for seeking exemption for the issuance of Commercial Pilot
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 24
License (CPL). The petitioner filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) no
7053/2013 titled as Sachin Solanki V Union of India to impugn the
communication dated 28.05.2013 which was dismissed vide order
dated 12.11.2013 and thereafter petitioner filed LPA no 985/2013
which was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2014 by the Division
Bench of this Court whereby communication/order dated 28.05.2013
was ordered to be set aside with various directions including the
Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to pass a reasoned order
after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including
requirement of an EEG done away by notice dated 02.11.2011.The
petitioner again made representation dated 04.04.2014 to the Director
(Licensing), Directorate of Civil Aviation for seeking exemption for
the issuance of Commercial Pilot License (CPL) which was rejected
vide impugned order dated 23.06.2014. The respondent considered
the actual date of fitness i.e. 25.04.2012 while passing the order dated
23.06.2014.
8.1 It is worth mentioning here that the petitioner in representation
dated 05.03.2013 claimed to have almost all requirements except
following requirements:-
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 25
1. As PlC-15Hrs,
2. PIC by Night-5 Hrs. (With at least 10 take off &10
landings)
3. General flying test by day with three solo take off and
landings each
4. General flying tests Night with three solo take off and
landings each
5. 250 NM cross-country test' by day with one full stop
landing at other aerodrome
6. 120 NM X-country test by night (returning to point of
dep. Without landing)
7. Signal reception test report (eightwords per minute)
8. Instrument time on actual aircraft - 5Hr,
9. IR test report with two approaches on aircraft for which
endorsement on License is requested
10. for Multi: -
• General flying test by day with three solo take off and
landings each
• General flying tests Night with three solo take off and
landings each
• IR test report with two approaches on aircraft for
which multi-endorsement on License is requested, (for
Multi -IR only)
8.2 Schedule II of Aircraft Rules, 1937 deals with aircraft personnel.
Section J of the Schedule II deals with Commercial Pilots License
(Aeroplanes). Clause 1 of Section J deals with the necessary
requirements such as age, educational qualification, medical fitness,
knowledge, experience, skill besides other requirements for issuance
of commercial pilot License which are required to be satisfied before
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 26
issuance of commercial pilot License. Clause 1 of Section J reads as
under:-
Section J
Commercial Pilot's License (Aeroplanes)
1. Requirements for issue of License-- An applicant for a
Commercial Pilot's License shall satisfy the following
requirements:--
(a) Age-- He shall be not less than Eighteen years of age on
the date of application:
(b) Educational Qualification-- He shall have passed Class
Ten plus Two or an equivalent examination with Physics
and Mathematics, from a recognized Board/University.
(c) Medical Fitness-- He shall produce on a prescribed
proforma a certificate of physical fitness from an approved
Medical Board after undergoing a medical examination
during which he shall have established his medical fitness
on the basis of compliance with the requirements as notified
by the Director-General under Rule 39B.
(d) Knowledge-- He shall pass a written examination in Air
Regulations, Air Navigation Meteorology and aircraft and
Engines and Signals (practical) examination for
interpretation of aural and visual signals, as per the
syllabus prescribed by the Director-General :
Provided that the holder of a current Commercial Pilot's
License (Helicopters) shall be required to pass an
examination in Aircraft and Engines only.
(e) Experience-- He shall produce evidence of having
satisfactorily completed as a pilot of an aeroplane within a
period of five years immediately preceding the date of
application for License not less than two hundred hours of
flight time, which shall include--
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 27
(i) not less than one hundred hours of flight time as Pilot-
in-Command of which not less than fifteen hours shall
have been completed within a period of six months
immediately preceding the date of application for License;
(ii) not less than twenty hours of cross-country flight time
as Pilot-in-Command including a cross-country flight of not
less than three hundred nautical miles in the course of
which full stop landings at two different aerodromes shall
be made;
(iii) not less than ten hours of instrument time of which
not more than five hours may be on an approved simulator;
and
(iv) not less than five hours of flight time by night
including a minimum of ten take-offs and ten landings as
Pilot-in-Command as (sole manipulator of controls) carried
out within six months immediately precedings the date of
application for License.
Provided that in case of an applicant who is in possession of
a Commercial Pilot's License (Helicopters/Airline
Transport Pilot's License (Helicopters) and who has
satisfactorily completed not less than 1000 hours of flight
time as Pilot-in-Command of a helicopter, the above
experience requirement of two hundred hours as pilot of an
aeroplane shall be reduced to one hundred hours, which
shall include -
(i) Not less than seventy five hours of flight time as pilot-
in-command
including a minimum of twenty five hours of cross country
flight time and ten hours of instrument time of which not
less than five hours may be on approved simulator;
(ii) Not less than five hours of flight time by night
including ten takeoffs and landing patterns; and
(iii) Not less than ten hours of flight time on aeroplane
within a period of six months immediately preceding the
date of application for issue of License.
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 28
(f) Flying Training-- He shall have completed the flying
training in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the
Director-General.
(g) Other Requirements-- He shall be in possession of a
current Flight Radio Telephone Operator's License for
operation of radio telephone apparatus on board an
aircraft issued by the Director-General.
(h) Skill-- He shall have demonstrated his competency to
perform the procedures and manoeuvres prescribed in the
syllabus to the satisfaction of an examiner, on the type of
aeroplane to which the application for License relates,
within a period of six months immediately preceding the
date of application. The Director General may, however,
allow Skill Test or part thereof to be carried out on
aircraft/ approved Zero Flight Time Training simulator
level ‗D' for the type of aircraft. The competency shall be
demonstrated as in --
(i) general flying test by day;
(ii) general flying test by night;
(iii) a cross-country flight test by day consisting of a flight
of not less than two hundred fifty nautical miles in the
course of which at least one full stop landing at an
aerodrome other than the aerodrome of departure shall be
made; and
(iv) a cross-country flying test by night consisting of a flight
of not less than one hundred twenty nautical miles
returning to the place of departure without landing
elsewhere.
8.3 It is also apparent that the petitioner was declared medically fit
on 25.04.2012 but at that time the petitioner was not fulfilling other
requirements as mentioned in Section J, Schedule II of Aircraft
Rules, 1937 for issue of Commercial Pilot License. It is true that the
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 29
petitioner had undergone training in USA for CPL but it doesn't
mean that the petitioner was meeting necessary requirements for
issuance of Indian Commercial Pilot License as stipulated in Aircraft
Rules, 1937. The petitioner was required to fulfil other requirements
to get Indian CPL as per Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner might
be fulfilling requirements of written examinations and flying training
experience on a back date but the petitioner never submitted requisite
documents to the respondent. The respondent in order dated
23.06.2014 which is appearing to be speaking order, has considered
relevant facts pertaining to issuance of Commercial Pilot License to
the petitioner.
8.4 Sh. L. S. Solanki, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the
petitioner had undergone successful medical examination of Class-I
vide medical certificate dated 06.02.2007 but vide letter dated
16.08.2007 was declared medically permanently unfit on the basis of
abnormal EEG. The petitioner appealed against the said order
16.08.2007 which was rejected by the respondent. It was further
argued that the petitioner passed the Class-I medical test vide
certificate dated 25.04.2012 and the respondent did not comply with
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 30
the orders dated 18.08.2011 and 21.02.2014 passed by this court. The
action of the respondent in not allowing the exemptions under Rule
160 of Aircraft Rules, 1937 is arbitrary, biased and illegal and against
the directions given by this Court particularly vide order dated
21.02.2014. The perusal of record particularly of the impugned order
dated 23.06.2014 reflects that the respondent has considered various
representations submitted by the petitioner for seeking exemption
from Commercial Pilot License (CPL). The issuance of Commercial
Pilot License and exemption from requirement of Commercial Pilot
License are purely administrative functions and the courts under
power of judicial review cannot decide whether the petitioner is
entitled from exemption from issuance of Commercial Pilot License.
It is for the appropriate authority to take suitable decision in this
regard and after considering relevant factors that whether the
applicant is fulfilling all necessary requirements for issuance of
Commercial Pilot License or exemption there from as claimed by the
petitioner. The decision of the respondent cannot be said to be
arbitrary and illegal as the respondent passed the impugned order
dated 23.06.2014 after considering all relevant facts and directions
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 31
given by this court in two different LPAs filed by the petitioner.
Section J of the Schedule II of Aircraft Rules, 1937 dealing with
Commercial Pilots License (Aeroplanes) is comprehensive and
cannot be diluted. Any person seeking issuance of commercial pilot
License must fulfil all qualifications as prescribed under the Aircraft
Rules, 1937. There is no force in arguments advanced by the counsel
for the petitioner. There is merit in arguments advanced by the
counsel for the respondent that though the petitioner had undergone
training in USA for Commercial Pilot License but was not meeting
the requirements for issue of Indian CPL as stipulated in Aircraft
Rules, 1937. It is worth mentioning here that that petitioner in
representation dated 05.03.2013 admitted that he was not having
certain requirements as detailed hereinabove.
8.5 There is also no merit in relief claimed by the petitioner that para
3.2 of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dated 06.03.2007 Series B
Part-II is ultra vires to Rule 160 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
9. The respondent has passed the impugned order dated 23.06.2014
on the basis of relevant facts and after considering the background of
various representations filed by the petitioner. The impugned order
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 32
dated 23.06.2014 is justified and cannot be set aside. There is no
merit in present petition, hence dismissed along with pending
application, if any.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
JULY 02, 2024
j/ak
Signing Date:03.07.2024 W.P.(C).7952/2014 Page 33
