Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 479 (PNJ)

Lakhbir Singh Bilam v. State Of Haryana

2005-04-04

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2005
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction to the Adviser, Civil Aviation, Haryana, to recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of Commercial Pilot Licence to Director General of Civil Aviation, (for short, the DGCA), New Delhi, by exempting him from appearing in two lapsed papers, on the ground that he has already passed six papers meant for Commercial Pilot Licence. 2. Case pleaded by the petitioner is that under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 read with Aircraft Rules, 1937 , Commercial Pilot Licence is issued by the Central Government, to the persons duly trained by Flying Clubs. On 26.5.1995, an advertisement (Annexure P.1) was given by the Civil Aviation Department of Haryana, inviting applications for admission to the training for Pilot Licence. The petitioner applied for admission as Trainee Pilot and was selected. Vide letter dated 20.7.1995, (Annexure P.2), the petitioner was sponsored for the Pinjore Aviation Club. A trainee Pilot is required to record 250 hours of flying training for the licence of a Commercial Pilot and is also required to pass the following papers:- "i) Air Regulation; ii) Air Navitation; iii) Aviation Meteorology; iv) Technical (General and specific) Type Air Craft; v) Radio Telephone; vi) Wireless Telegraphy (Morse 6 words per minute)." 3. The license is granted for three years. 4. The petitioner qualified first and second papers on 1.3.1996 and 7.3.1996 and became eligible for 60 hours of flying training. The petitioner was, however, allowed only 3.25 hours of training upto 12.11.1996. He was then allowed 60 hours flying training by 23.2.1997. The petitioner qualified next two papers on October 20, 1996 vide Annexure P.6. He passed the 5th paper on 21.3.1997 and became entitled to 75 hours Haryana flying quota upto March 31, 1997. The petitioner made a representation on 9.3.1997 (Annexure P.7) that though, he had passed four out of six papers, he was not being given flying training. He was allotted only 36 hours instead of 75 hours. He filed C.W.P. No. 5925 of 1997. In the reply, the respondents pleaded want of funds for allowing flying hours to the petitioner. The petitioner completed all the papers and was given Private Pilot Licence on 27.2.1997. However, one Sunil Dutt Sharma was given more flying hours. Respondent No. 7 was given 110 hours of flying training, though he was not a bonafide resident of Haryana. 5. In the reply, the respondents pleaded want of funds for allowing flying hours to the petitioner. The petitioner completed all the papers and was given Private Pilot Licence on 27.2.1997. However, one Sunil Dutt Sharma was given more flying hours. Respondent No. 7 was given 110 hours of flying training, though he was not a bonafide resident of Haryana. 5. On 15,9.1998 (Annexure P.11), this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioners grievance be disposed of by a speaking order. The petitioner filed COCP No. 354 of 1998 upon which the petitioner was granted 9.45 hours of flying quota for completion of Commercial Pilot Training vide Annexure P. 15 dated 3.8.1999. The petitioner completed 250 flying hours including skill test, night flying and passing of all the six papers. On 30.8.1999, a statement was made on behalf of the State of Haryana that, the case of the petitioner will be sent to the Director General of Civil Aviation on which the rule was discharged. Though, his case was recommended but the same was not done properly as was done in the case of one Deepak Raja. The Director General, Civil Aviation did not grant exemption from passing two lapsed papers which had been passed by the petitioner earlier and rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that grant of extension of validity period for the said papers had already expired. It is further stated that the case of Dinesh Bansal and Deepak Raja was at par with the petitioner but the petitioner was not given the same treatment. His flying training was delayed for one reason or the other and thus, he was denied the licence on account of fault of the authorities. Impugned order passed by the Director General of Civil Aviation dated 21.9.1999, Annexure P.19 is as under:- "On scrutiny of paper for issue of CPL/FRTO in respect of Shri Lakhbir Singh, it has been noticed that his Air Hylgation and Air Regulation papers were passed on 29.10.96 and their validity upto 28.10.98. The grant of extension of the validity period for the said papers have also been expired as per the guide-lines issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Therefore, CPL/FRTO cannot be issued at this stage." 6. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana as well as the Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. The grant of extension of the validity period for the said papers have also been expired as per the guide-lines issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Therefore, CPL/FRTO cannot be issued at this stage." 6. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana as well as the Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. On behalf of the State of Haryana, it is stated that delay in imparting training was for reasons beyond the control of the said respondent. The flying hours were allotted as per availability. The petitioner was allowed to complete the flying hours. On behalf of the DGCA, it is stated in para 18 that application for licence was to be submitted within two years of the technical and other exams, apart from completing the minimum number of the flying hours. In case of a genuine difficulty, time could be extended under Rule 160 of the Rules. Relaxation could be only upto to 25% of the prescribed time limit. In the case of the petitioner, time could be extended maximum upto 28.4.1999 but his application was received on 13.9.1999 i.e. after six months and 15 days after expiry of validity and the said period being beyond six months, extension could not be granted. Cases of Deepak Raja and Dinesh Bansal were not beyond six months limit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the rules, there is no time limit as claimed in the reply. Learned counsel for the DGCA was unable to show any rule fixing time limit of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 1 of Section J laying down requirements for issuing of Commercial Pilot Licence and submitted that the reason given by the DGCA was not supported by the rules. 8. Though, normally, there could be no interference with a decision taken on merits in accordance with law in the matter of grant of licence for Commercial Pilot but neither in the impugned order nor in the reply, any material has been placed on record showing how licence could be declined on the ground that application was submitted to the DGCA beyond two years of the passing of the technical and other exams. This court is left with no option but to give a direction to respondent No. 2-DGCA to pass a fresh order after considering the claim of the petitioner and by showing the relevant basis for rejecting the petitioners claim. Respondent No. 2 will also refer to the relevant rules on the subject. The order will be passed within one month of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is not satisfied, he will at liberty to move this court again. 9. The petition is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.