SNV Aviation (P) Ltd. v.

Directorate General of Civil Aviation1

Facts

The present event arises from a dispute between an airline famously known as ‘Akasa Air’
(goes with the name SNV Aviation Private limited) and its pilots. The petitioner number one
has filed the said appeal because a large number of its pilots resigned from their individual
posts without giving any employers' minimal contractual notice which is minimum six
months before their resignation as mentioned in the specific contract and agreements signed
between the airlines the employee pilots. The forty-three pilots who worked for Akasa Air
quit without giving the required six months' notice, which disrupted the airline's operations
which arguably caused the airline to cancel 600 flights only in the month of august causing a
lot of financial loss and public havoc.

Issues

The jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and whether the said authority
can intervene in the cases where the pilots have been employed by virtue of a contract with
the airline.

Arguments Made

Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the pilots failed to comply with their contractual
obligations by resigning without serving the minimum contractual notice period which led the
airlines to cancel multiple flights which caused havoc to the passengers and is also against the
public interest as per the Civil Air Regulations, 2017 (CAR 2017). According to clause 11.4.1
of the contract between the pilots and the airline, they ought to have given a minimum 6
months period notice before resigning. In order for the airline to develop backup plans and
guarantee the seamless continuation of its flying operations, this contractual provision was
crucial. The petitioner urged the respondents to be attentive to potential future violations by
their current pilots, specifically in cases where they resign without fulfilling the minimum
contractual notice period and to take action against the defaulters for violation of CAR 2017,
Aircraft rules 1937 and applicable statutes.

1
SNV Aviation (P) Lrd. V. Directorate General of Civil Aviation, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6131
Respondent

The counsel for the respondents argues that CAR 2017 was an executive instruction issued by
the DGCA under the Rule 133A of the Aircraft rules of 1937. These regulations are
characterized as mere guidelines that stakeholders are expected to adhere to. However, it is
emphasized that these rules do not supersede the contractual agreements entered into between
airlines and their pilot employees. The respondents strongly object to the petitioner's plea for
relief, asserting that they lack jurisdiction to intervene in breach of contractual obligations
between airlines and their pilot employees. The respondents are argued to not have privity of
contract and thereby cannot take decision is in the present matter.

Pilot

The pilot associations argued that the first respondent, DGCA, lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate
the current case as it involves a breach of contract outside its purview. They contend that any
breach of the minimum contractual notice period by defaulting pilots should only be
addressed through legal remedies available to the employer for contract enforcement. The
counsel asserts that under Section 5(2)(g) of the 1934 Act, DGCA is empowered solely to
establish rules pertaining to licensing requirements and does not possess authority to enforce
contracts between pilots and airlines. It is emphasized that the respondents' authority under
Rule 39A(2) of the 1937 Rules is limited to addressing non-compliance with licensing
conditions, and no action is permissible for failure to adhere to contractual terms.

Judgement

The argument that the pilots have not adhered to their individual minimum contractual notice
periods of six (6) months has not been refuted by either the respondents or the pilot
organisations. The respondents have however contended that there was no mass effect on the
operations of flights due to resignation of the said pilots. The forty-three pilots who have
already resigned are not the subject of a request from the petitioner for the respondents to
take any action. Rather, the petitioner is requesting that the respondents keep an eye out for
any future infractions by their present pilots. It is crucial for the court to initially ascertain the
jurisdiction of the DGCA in such cases. Before issuing any directive to Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 to address the petitioners' representation regarding potential future infractions by
defaulting pilots, the court must resolve the jurisdictional issue of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at
this interim stage. However, it is clarified that if, at any point during the ongoing proceedings
of this petition, a pilot violates the minimum contractual notice period outlined in their
employment agreement, such action will be undertaken at the pilot's own risk and will be
contingent upon the resolution of the current petition.

The High Court decided not to give the DGCA and the MCA a direct direction to take action
on any future submissions Akasa Air could make against pilots who might quit without giving
the required amount of notice. It reasoned that before issuing any such direction, the
jurisdictional question should be settled, given the DGCA's claim that it lacks authority in
contractual matters. The Court stressed that the requested directives may wait for the
resolution of the ongoing petition.

Conclusion

The case's judge, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, stressed that the DGCA has the authority to
take legal action against pilots who violate the Civil Aviation Regulations 2017 (CAR 2017)
and break their contracts. Despite prior interim decisions given by the Court in 2018, the
verdict of the court made it clear that the DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA)
are not completely restrained from pursuing action against companies that breach CAR 2017.
This decision effectively maintained the DGCA's authority over these cases. It made clear
that these directives were only going to take effect if pilots and airlines followed the
conditions of their employment contracts. In the case of non-compliance, CAR 2017 would
take effect, and the DGCA would be free to take action against the party in violation of both
CAR 2017 and the applicable legislation.

Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra v. Union of India2

2
Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1792
Facts

On November 26, 2022, an incident occurred aboard an Air India flight involving the
petitioner in the current case, Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra. He was accused of misconduct
and inappropriate behaviour while allegedly in an inebriated state by a fellow passenger. The
aggrieved party formally lodged a complaint, recorded on the Air-Sewa Grievance Portal on
December 24, 2022, under CARHUP paragraph six. Subsequently, a committee conducted
four inquiries before issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner on December 23, 2022.
Following a comprehensive examination of statements from all parties involved and
supporting documentation, the committee concluded that Shankar Shyamnaval Mishra met
the criteria of an "unruly passenger" as defined in paragraph 3.1 of the Civil Aviation
Regulation 2017. This determination was based on complaints filed by the accuser and the
"Performa for reporting of unduly/disruptive passenger." Consequently, the respondent
passenger was placed on the "No Fly List," resulting in a four-month flying ban in
accordance with Level 2 of paragraph 8.1 of the CAR. A copy of the committee's report was
sent to the respondent and his legal counsel. Paragraph 8.1 of CARHUP specifies that other
airlines have the option to impose a ban on the said passenger for a duration outlined in that
section.

This report was under the purview of appeal to the Appellate Committee. As per the
Paragraph 8.1 of CARHUP which states “8.1 For any person, who is placed in the No-Fly
List, other airlines shall have the option to ban him from taking flights to/from/within India
for a duration as indicated below: a) Level 1 upto three months b) Level 2 upto six months c)
Level 3 for a minimum period of 2 years or more without limit d) Persons covered under
Para 7 Barred till such time that the person is perceived to be national security risk by the
Ministry of Home Affairs” and paragraph 8.5 read together which states “8.5 Aggrieved
persons (other than those covered under para 7 of this CAR), on receipt of communication of
ban from the airline, may appeal within sixty days from the date of issue of the order, to an
Appellate Committee constituted by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, consisting of the
following: a) Retired Judge of a High Court as Chairman. b) Representative from a
passengers association or consumer association retired officer of Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum as Member. c) Representative of the airlines of the rank not below the rank
of Vice-President or equivalent as Member.”. The petitioner requested vide a mail to the
DGCA for formation of an appellate committee as provided under para 8.5. there was no
formal response to the said request. And hence this petition.
Issue

The petitioner seeks from the court to direct the appropriate authority for constitution of the
Appellate Committee in a timely manner as per the para 8.5 of the Civil Aviation requirement
for handing of unruly passengers (CARHUP).

Arguments Made

Petitioner

The counsel for the petitioner contended that immediately after receiving the copy of the
above order, the petitioner requested the DGCA to constitute an appellate committee for him
to be able to file an appeal against the order as per CARHUP. There was no response from
either of the respondents. The following prayers were sought from the petitioners.

a) Directing the respondent 1 for constituting an appellate committee as per the para 8.5
of CARHUP in a time bound manner.
b) Issuing an order for the same
c) Issue an order that the sixty day period as per the para 8.5 of CARHUP shall begin
from the date of notification issued on 08.09.2017.

Respondents

The counsel for the respondents stated that the appellate committee shall be formed within a
week. It was submitted that a committee was formed but the chairman who was a retired
judge resigned thus creating a vacancy which the ministry is yet to fill by appointing a new
chairperson. This process shall be completed within the next two weeks, claimed the counsel.

Judgement

According to Paragraph 8.5 of the CARHUP, the petitioner had 60 days from the date of the
committee's order to appeal. Instead of sending an email on January 19, 2023, indicating an
intention to appeal, the petitioner should have actually filed the appeal during that time.
However, considering the current vacancy due to the absence of the Chairperson, who needs
to be appointed, the petitioner is now allowed to file an appeal within the next two weeks.

The Appellate Committee will be formed within the next two weeks, and the appeal hearing
is scheduled for April 20, 2023. The petitioner's lawyer will be informed of the time and
location by the Respondent No. 1- Ministry. Any changes in the hearing date will also be
communicated to the petitioner's lawyer. Importantly, the court has not assessed the merits of
the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court addressed the petitioner's request for the constitution of an Appellate
Committee in accordance with Paragraph 8.5 of the Civil Aviation Requirement for Handling
of Unruly Passengers (CARHUP). While acknowledging the petitioner's delay in filing the
appeal within the stipulated timeframe, the court considered the exceptional circumstance of
the current vacancy in the Appellate Committee's chairmanship. The court permitted the
petitioner to file an appeal within the next two weeks, taking into account the ongoing
process of appointing a new chairperson to fill the existing vacancy. The Appellate
Committee is expected to be constituted within the same timeframe. It's important to note that
the court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, emphasizing that its decision
focused solely on the procedural aspects and the unique circumstance of the chairperson
vacancy. The conclusion underscores the court's commitment to a fair and timely resolution
of the matter, respecting the procedural requirements outlined in CARHUP and ensuring due
process for all parties involved.