V A JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the vires of the amendment to Clause 6 of Section M of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 published in GSR No.11(E) dated 10.1.2011. The operative portion of the said amendment with which the petitioners feel aggrieved reads as under: 3. In Schedule II of the said rules, - (i) in Sections B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, for paragraph 2, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:- 2.Validity - The licence shall be valid for a period as specified in rule 39C. (ii) in Sections J and M, in paragraph 6, after the second and third proviso, respectively, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provided also that on attainment of the age of sixty-five years, such privileges shall be restricted to that of Private Pilot`s Licence (Aeroplanes).

(2.) BY the aforesaid amendment, the respondents have restricted the privileges of the petitioners, who are holders of airline transport pilot licences, on the attainment of age of sixty-five years to that of private pilot licence holders. According to the petitioners, the impugned amendment has, in effect, infringed their rights to earn livelihood and remuneration and to be gainfully employed for the purpose of flying private aircrafts on non-commercial flight operations. This, they perceive, is violating their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(G) and 21 of the Constitution of India as according to the petitioners, this amendment imposes unreasonable restrictions which serve no purpose and ex facie appear to be an act out of vindictiveness. The basic factual matrix of the lis raised in this petition goes as under:

(3.) THE aforesaid rule, as it existed, permitted the pilots, even after the age of 65 years, to fly/engage in non-commercial air transport operations as it does not restrict those pilots holding ALPT licenses from flying private aircraft for non-commercial operations. According to the petitioners, even when this was the legal position, on the plain reading of Rule 28A of the Aircraft Rules, the Joint Director General of Civil Aviation issued a circular Notification dated 25.6.2008 incorrectly interpreting the aforesaid rule and thereby imposing a virtual ban on the persons above the age of 65 years from even flying non-commercial aircrafts, whether scheduled or unscheduled. Some of the petitioners, therefore, challenged this Notification by filing Writ Petition No.5850/2008. Entertaining this petition, order dated 16.10.2008 was passed by this Court granting interim stay of the operation of the aforesaid communication dated 25.6.2008. However, thereafter the impugned amendment was made in Clause 6 of Section M to Schedule II of the Rules. This amendment in the rules was informed to the Court in the aforesaid pending writ petition. Taking note thereof, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 9.2.2011 holding that the said writ petition had become infructuous. At the same time, liberty was granted to the petitioners to challenge the said amendment. This is how the present writ petition has been filed.