LexTHE JOINT ACTION COMMITIEE OF AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA & ORS. versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 1019 THE JOINT ACTION COMMITIEE OF AIRLINES PILOTS A ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA & ORS. v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 2011) MAY 03, 2011 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Aircraft Act, 1934 - ss. 4A, 5 and 5A - Executive instructions regarding air safety - Issuance of Circular dated c 29.05.2008 by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to the effect that Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dated 27.07.2007 had been kept in abeyance - Pending finalisation of CAR 2007, revival of old Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) 2811992 - Validity and propriety of Circular dated D 29. 05. 2008 - Challenge to - Held: CAR 2007 is neither a statute nor a subordinate legisiation - They are merely executive instructions which can be termed as special directions - There was a specific order in the form of interim measures, by the competent authority in exercise of statutory E powers whereby AIC 28192 was revived - DGCA has ample power to issue such instructions or directions in exercise of its power under the 1937 Rules - Thus, it cannot be said that the Circular dated 29.5.2008 was either issued illegally or without any authority - More so, the whole exercise was done· F to bring a new CAR into existence for which process has already been initiated and new CAR is likely to come into existence very soon-AircraftRules, 1937- ff. 42A and 133A - Administrative law. Administrative law: Subordinate legislation - Statutory authority keeping subordinate legislation in abeyance - Permissibility of - Held: It might be permissible in exceptional circumstances - 1019 G H 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A However, such an order being legislative in character, is not waffanted to be interfered ~y the Court/Tribunal. Executive instructions/Orders/Circulars - Effect of- Held: Executive instructions do not have the force of law but are issued by the competent authority for guidance and to 8 implement the scheme of the Act - It can be altered, replaced and substituted at any time - Law merely prohibits the issuance of a direction,· which is not in consonance with the Act or the statutory rules applicable therein. c Executive instructions/Orders/Circulars - Revival of executive instructions - Held: Once the old rule has been substituted by the new rule, it stands obliterated, thus, ceases to exist and under no circumstance, can it be revived in case the new rule is held to be invalid and struck down by the Court o - However, position would be different in case a statutory amendment by the Legislature is held to be bad for want of legislative competence, wherein the repealed statutory provisions would revive automatically. Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of election - Basis of - E Held: Doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel - Principle that. one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. . Appellants are the Joint Action Committees of the F Airlines Pilots Association representing several airlines operating in India. Under. Aeronautical Information Circular No. 28192 Flight Time (FT) and Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) was fixed depending upon the distance of destination and number of landings. The rest G period for the pilots stood substantially changed by the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) dated 27.07.2007 to the greater benefit of the pilots. The airlines made several representations to respondents-Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and the Central Government that it was H JT. ACTION COMM. OF AIRLINES PILOTS ASSN. OF INDIA v. 1021 DIR. GEN. OF CIVILAVIATION . . practically not possible for them to ensure c:ompliance of A CAR 2007. Some of the appellants challenged the CAR dated 27.07:2007 by filing Writ Petition No. 2176 of,2007 .. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No. 1-DGCA issued a Circular dated 29.05.2008 to the effect that CAR dated B 27.07.2007 had been kept in abeyance. By a subsequent order dated 02.06.2008, the AIC 28/92 was revived. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the validity and propriety of the Circular dated 29.05.2008 and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant c appeal. Dismissing the appeal,· the Court HELD: 1.1. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel-the principle that one cannot approbate D and reprobate inheres i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.