1. This order will dispose of WP(C) No. 3839/2011 and WP(C) No. 899/ 2012. 2. Both the cases were heard together since the issue involved is interrelated and parties to the Us are the same. 3. Core issue, which arises for consideration in both the writ petitions, is the non-renewal of approval granted to the College of Aeronautical Engineering, Borjhar, Guwahati by the Director General of Civil Aviation, Government of India and consequential direction for non-enrollment of students. 4. Petitioner No. 1 is the College of Aeronautical Engineering, Borjhar, Guwahati and petitioner No. 2 is the Accountable Manager of the said College. 5. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is an institute of aeronautical engineering, established at Guwahati in the State of Assam. Objective of petitioner No. 1 is to impart education and training for the course of Basic Aircraft Maintenance Engineering. Petitioner No. 1 after complying with the necessary requirements sought for approval from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), Government of India as Category G Training Institute on 7-7.2008. Establishment and functioning of such institutes are governed by the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. 6. On being satisfied about fulfillment of eligibility criteria, petitioner No. 1 was granted certificate of approval by the DGCA on 8.6.2009 for the period from 8.6.2009 to 31.12.2009, following which it started its academic activities by admitting the first batch of students from August, 2009. DGCA extended the approval granted to petitioner No. 1 till 31.3.2010. 7. Though petitioners had applied for renewal of approval, such approval was not renewed. Instead a communication dated 23.6.2010 was issued by the Sr. Airworthiness Officer, Civil Aviation Department, Government of India, LGBI Airport, Guwahati addressed to the petitioner No. 2 stating that due to non-availability of full information, current status in respect of compliance of deficiencies, etc., renewal of approval could not be agreed to, pending compliance of audit findings. Petitioners were directed not to admit new students while calling for furnishing of current status. This was followed by another communication dated 27.7.2010, issued by the Controller of Airworthiness and addressed to the petitioner No. 2 stating that DGCA Headquarters had examined the request of the petitioners for renewal of approval, but declined to grant approval on the ground that petitioner No. 1 does not have pressurised aeroplane with most of the primary systems in a functional condition. It was also stated that petitioner No. 1 did not have properly documented a arrangements with approved Aircraft Maintenance Organizations for practical demonstration of maintenance of complete aircraft engines and relevant systems. It was stated that till the deficiencies are met by the petitioner No. 1, there should not be any further intake of fresh batch of students. 8. At this stage, petitioners filed WP(C) No. 3839/2011 before this court seeking quashing of the aforesaid communications dated 23.6.2010 and 27.7.2010, and for a direction to the respondents to renew the approval granted earlier. Further grievance made by the petitioners in the said writ petition was that the students, who had already been admitted as per the approval granted by the DGCA, were not granted computer numbers by the DGCA authorities so as to enable them to appear in the examinations to be conducted by the DGCA in the year 2011. 9. On 15.9.2011, this court referring to the extension of approval for three months, observed that it was not conceivable as to why such d approval for continuance of the institute should be given for a period of three months only when the course of study was admittedly for a longer duration. Accordingly, this court passed the following order: “In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances, in the interim, the respondent authorities concerned are hereby directed to issue computer e numbers to the students of the petitioners’ Institute to enable them to fill up forms by 16th September, 2011 and to enable them to appear in the ensuing examination. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the forms so submitted on behalf of the students of the Institute, shall be accepted and condoned by the respondent authorities, even if there is a delay of a few days in the process of obtaining computer numbers and filling up of the forms. However, it is made clear that the result of the examination of the students of the petitioners’ institute shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.” As the aforesaid writ petition was confined to the grant of approval till December 2011, petitioners were unable to make further admission. In such circumstances, petitioners again moved this court by filing WP(C) No. 899/2012 seeking the additional prayer for renewal of approval to cover the academic session 2012-2013. In such circumstances, petitioners again moved this court by filing WP(C) No. 899/2012 seeking the additional prayer for renewal of approval to cover the academic session 2012-2013. On 28.6.2012, this court passed the following order: “Along with the writ petition and the additional affidavit, the writ petitioners have submitted number of documents wherefrom it is gathered that various inspections of the institute have been carried out by the Senior Airworthiness Officer under the Director General of Civil Aviation and thereafter a meeting was also held involving Senior Officers of the Director General of Civil Aviation and the petitioners. The meeting was held on 16.12.2010 and minutes were prepared on 20.12.2010. This apart, Senior Airworthiness Officer has also submitted reports to the DGCA on 12.11.2010 and 16.11.2010 informing the said authority that the institute is well equipped with all necessary equipments. Besides this, the petitioners have also annexed the documents from Indian Air Force as well as M/s. McLeod Russel certifying that the petitioners institute can utilize their aircraft for practical training. This apart, the petitioners have also submitted a detail report to the respondents on 27.7.2011. However, since then the respondents have neither responded to the petitioners nor have allowed them to admit students for the academic session of 2012-13. Considering all the aspects, I am of the view that the petitioners may be allowed to admit the students for the year 2012-13 subject to the condition that the admission shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. The students should be made clear about this condition and specific slip/stamp shall be affixed in the admission receipts. This precondition shall also be incorporated prominently in the advertisement. Respondents are also directed to carry out a fresh inspection of the institute and take final decision in the light of the report submitted by the petitioners on 27.7.2011.” 10. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. P. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in his elaborate argument contended that petitioner No. 1 has fulfilled and complied with the necessary criteria laid down in the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), therefore, non-renewal of approval after having been granted once, is totally unjustified and wholly arbitrary. P. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in his elaborate argument contended that petitioner No. 1 has fulfilled and complied with the necessary criteria laid down in the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), therefore, non-renewal of approval after having been granted once, is totally unjustified and wholly arbitrary. He submits that this court in the order dated 28.6.2012 had directed the respondents to take a final decision on the report submitted by the petitioners on 27.7.2011 stating that CAR requirements had been complied with. After more than five months of the. court order, Director of Airworthiness had written to the petitioners on 21.1.2013 stating that audit inspection of petitioner No. 1 was carried out on 3rd and 4th December, 2012 as per latest revision of CAR. Petitioners were asked to take corrective steps to remove the deficiencies which were noticed during the audit inspection. Petitioners submitted their reply along with supporting enclosures on 28.2.2013, explaining the deficiencies. But there was no response. 12. Learned senior counsel submits that approach of the DGCA towards petitioner No. 1 is extremely negative and is a fault finding one. Petitioner No. 1 has been established to cater to the students of the North Eastern Region, which is admittedly an educationally backward region. It is the only one of its kind in the region and, therefore, the approach of the DGCA should be positive and an encouraging one. But contrary to such expectations, each time deficiencies are removed or explained by the petitioners, newer deficiencies are shown. Non-existent or minor deficiencies are magnified, thereby delaying extension of approval and jeopardizing the very existence of the institute and the future of the students enrolled. He therefore, submits that the court should intervene in the matter and direct the authorities to renew the approval granted to the petitioner No. 1. 13. Opposing the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. Sarma, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India submits that DGCA has been very indulgent towards petitioner No. 1. DGCA is committed to ensure quality education and training of aircraft maintenance and related subjects. There cannot be any compromise on quality which would have a bearing on safety of air traffic. R. Sarma, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India submits that DGCA has been very indulgent towards petitioner No. 1. DGCA is committed to ensure quality education and training of aircraft maintenance and related subjects. There cannot be any compromise on quality which would have a bearing on safety of air traffic. Petitioner No. 1 does not have a proper functional aeroplane for imparting training, It also does not have properly documented arrangements with approved Aircraft Maintenance Organizations for such training of the students. DGCA authorities have pointed out the basic deficiencies confronting petitioner No. 1 and once these deficiencies are removed, there is no reason why DGCA will not grant extension of approval. 14. Submissions made have been considered. I have also perused the relevant documents placed on record. 15. It appears that petitioner No. 1 has a MIG 21 Trainer aircraft with engines. But it appears that it is not in a fully functional condition. It further appears that petitioner No. 1 had entered into arrangements with Indian Air Force (IAF) and McLeod Russel Ltd. for familiarization and practical training of the students. However, DGCA authority had raised objection on the ground that petitioner No. 1 did not have proper documented arrangements with these two organizations, though at an earlier point of time, the Senior Airworthiness Officer had recommended to the DGCA that the tie tips entered into by the petitioner No. 1 should be accepted, further expressing the view that the petitioners had taken positive initiative to remove the deficiencies. 16. On 28.6.2013, this court after observing that prima facie the objection of the respondents to renewal of approval of petitioner No. 1 appeared to be more of form than of substance, passed the following order: “In the meanwhile, considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the earlier orders passed by this court on 15.9.2011 and 28.6.2012, some interim order is called for. It is seen that respondents have neither moved for modification of the above orders nor have they filed any appeal. Consequently, the above orders are holding the field. It is seen that respondents have neither moved for modification of the above orders nor have they filed any appeal. Consequently, the above orders are holding the field. Since this court had earlier directed the respondents to issue computer numbers to the students to enable them to appear in the examination in 2011 with the further clarification that the results of the examination would be subject to the outcome of the case and again subsequently passed order allowing admission for the year 2012-13, I am of the view that similar order is called for. b Accordingly, respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to admit students for the year 2013-14 on similar conditions as in the order dated 28.6.2012. Further, students of the 2012-13 batch should be given computer numbers so that they can appear in the examination.” 17. Following the above order, respondents filed an additional-affidavit-in-opposition on 06.8.2013. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that though petitioner No. 1 had made tie-ups with different agencies, such as, McLeod Russel Ltd. for Light Engine Aircraft and IAF for Heavy Jet Engine Aircraft etc., it had failed to submit the plan for carrying out practical training. Contention of the respondents is that practical/maintenance experience gained at various organizations to familiarize with the aircraft system without hands on maintenance experience cannot be considered sufficient for the students to gain the practical maintenance experience on the aircraft. Petitioner No. 1 was audited by a team of DGCA officers to verify compliance status as per latest CAR requirements for the purpose of renewal of approval. Deficiencies noted during the audit inspection were communicated to the petitioners vide DGCA letter dated 28.1.2013. The tie-up with McLeod Russel Ltd. was found to be invalid. Action taken report submitted by petitioner No. 1 on 28.2.2013 was not accepted and further clarification was sought for. Petitioner No. 1 was f finally informed on 25.6.2013 about the deficiencies noticed. 18. Petitioners filed a reply-affidavit to the above affidavit of the respondents on 29.8.2013. This was followed by a comprehensive affidavit filed by the petitioners on 29.11.2013. It is stated that even as per the audit observations contained in the DGCA communication dated 28.1.2013, the points of discrepancies came down drastically from 74 to 38. It is contended that most of the deficiencies pointed out were vague and were no deficiencies at all. This was followed by a comprehensive affidavit filed by the petitioners on 29.11.2013. It is stated that even as per the audit observations contained in the DGCA communication dated 28.1.2013, the points of discrepancies came down drastically from 74 to 38. It is contended that most of the deficiencies pointed out were vague and were no deficiencies at all. Petitioners have complied with each and every instruction of the DGCA authorities. However, it is stated that keeping in view the recent amendments made in the CAR, petitioner h No. 1 has already entered into contract agreements with two Aircraft Maintenance Organizations, namely, Assam Flying Club and M/s. North East Shuttles where the practicals would be done. The contract agreements entered into by the petitioner No. 1 with the aforesaid two Aircraft Maintenance Organizations have been placed on record as annexures to the said affidavit. It is further stated that the said arrangements made with the Aircraft Maintenance Organizations have been communicated to the DGCA on 25.11.2013. Petitioners have further stated that students admitted in petitioner No. 1 institute, either initially as per approval of DGCA or subsequently on the basis of interim orders of the court, would only be allowed to appear in the licence examination that would be conducted by none other than DGCA. Only in the event of being successful in the examination, a student would be conferred the degree entitling him/her to handle maintenance and operational duties of aircraft. Petitioner No. 1 has the record of having the highest pass percentage of students in the entire country, i.e., 50% in an academic batch to have successfully passed out in the licence examination conducted by the DGCA. 19. Aircraft Act, 1934 is a pre-independence legislation, which mandates making better provisions for the control of the manufacture, possession, use, operation, sale, import and export of aircraft. Section 5 thereof deals with power of Central Government to make rules. The Central Govt. is empowered to make rules regulating manufacture, possession, use, operation, sale, import or export of any aircraft or class of aircrafts and for securing the safety of aircraft operations. Amongst other provisions, such rules may provide for licensing of persons employed in the operation, manufacture, repair or maintenance of aircrafts. 20. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the said Act, the Aircraft Rules, 1937 has been framed. Amongst other provisions, such rules may provide for licensing of persons employed in the operation, manufacture, repair or maintenance of aircrafts. 20. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the said Act, the Aircraft Rules, 1937 has been framed. Rule 61 deals with licensing of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. It provides that the Central Government may grant licenses, authorizations or approvals or certificates of competency to persons, who meet the requirements as specified in the said rule. As per Rule 133A, the Director General of Civil Aviation is empowered to issue special instructions regarding CAR which are not inconsistent with the Aircraft Act, 1934 or the Aircraft Rules, 1937 relating to the operation, use, possession, maintenance or navigation of aircraft flying in or over India or of aircraft registered in India. Under Rule 133B, an approved Organization would include training schools. As per sub-rule (9) of Rule 133B, such an organization is required to comply with the requirements of CAR. 21. As noticed above, CAR is issued under the provisions of rule 133A. As per CAR dated 24.4.1992, it is applicable to all organizations engaged in manufacture, processing, testing of aircraft, aircraft components, items of equipment and Training Schools and specifies the standards to be followed by these organizations. Category G covers Training Schools imparting instruction for ab-initio training in the field of aircraft maintenance engineering and/or conducting courses for licensing/ approving/authorizing individuals for certifying airworthiness. It is also provided therein that approval is normally valid up to 31st December of the year in which it is issued. The procedure for renewal of approval is also detailed. 22. Clauses 4.6.9, 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.10 of the CAR requirements dated 30.5.2008 concerning approval of Category-G Training Institutes (Schools) are relevant for the present case. As per clause 4.6.9, the institutes which do not have pressurized aeroplane or helicopter complete with engine(s) running and intend to provide On Job Training (OJT) to the students shall make legally valid and viable contracts with Aircraft Maintenance Organizations having DGCA approval to maintain aircraft and engine covered by the scope of approval of the training institute for providing actual aircraft maintenance experience. On the other hand, clause 4.6.9.1 provides that institutes having their own aeroplane and aircraft/ helicopter engine(s) are in running condition may provide OJT as per the scope of approval on the aeroplane owned by them provided the facilities available are suitable for performing aircraft maintenance task in accordance with the guidelines and the students should be able to carry out the maintenance tasks and other checks listed in the training manual. Again, clause 4.6.10 contemplates that existing institutes which have their own pressurized aircraft but the engines are not functional should have an external power supply for demonstration of the various systems checks on the aircraft. However, these institutes are not allowed to provide OJT to their students in their premises on Jet engine. Instead, they should have arrangements with DGCA approved maintenance organisations for imparting OJT on the Jet engine to all the enrolled students. 23. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that an institute may have its own aeroplane with its engine in running condition so that OJT is provided to the students on the owned aeroplane as per training manual. In case, an institute does not have an aeroplane of its own, it can enter into legally valid and viable contracts with Aircraft Maintenance Organizations having DGCA approval for providing OJT to the students. Moreover, if an institute has an aircraft but the engine is not functional it can still use that aircraft for demonstration by having external power supply; but for OJT on Jet engine, it must have a tie up with a DGCA approved maintenance organization. 24. To get an Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licence in various categories, a candidate has to pass written as well as oral-cum-practical examinations conducted by the DGCA. In addition, a candidate will have to show a total aeronautical engineering experience of four years. The course of study prescribed provides for a staggered system where a student has to meet various prescribed requirements including having experience of varied periods to be eligible to appear in various theory papers. 25. As already noticed above, having its own functional aircraft is not an essential requirement for an institute to get approval from DGCA. The course of study prescribed provides for a staggered system where a student has to meet various prescribed requirements including having experience of varied periods to be eligible to appear in various theory papers. 25. As already noticed above, having its own functional aircraft is not an essential requirement for an institute to get approval from DGCA. As per clause 4.6.9 of CAR dated 30.5.2008, an institute which does not have an aeroplane or helicopter of its own may enter into legally valid and viable contract with an Aircraft Maintenance Organization having DGCA approval. Under clause 4.6.10, an institute having an aircraft but with engine not in running condition can still use it for the purpose of demonstration by providing external power supply; however, for OJT on Jet engine, it must have a tie up with a DGCA approved Aircraft Maintenance Organization. Though petitioner No. 1 has an aircraft in its premises, it appears that it is not fully functional. It nonetheless made arrangements with IAF and McLeod Russel Ltd. to provide OJT to the students. If the DGCA did not find the arrangements made by the petitioner No. 1 with the above two organizations as per its requirement, necessary steps could have been taken in this regard as per CAR. It is in this background that this court had passed interim orders from time-to-time permitting enrollment of students for the new academic sessions, allowing them to appear in the examinations and had also observed that objection of DGCA to renewal of approval is more of form than of substance. 26. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners on 29.11.2013, it is stated that petitioner No. 1 has presently entered into contract agreements with two Aircraft Maintenance Organizations, namely, Assam Flying Club and M/s. North East Shuttles where OJT will be provided to the students. It is also stated that the aforesaid arrangement has been indicated to the DGCA on 25.11.2013. 27. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, Court is of the view that non-renewal of approval to the petitioner No. 1 by the DGCA after 31.3.2010 is not justified. Accordingly, the DGCA should now take a fresh decision regarding grant of renewal of approval to the petitioner No. 1 and allow enrollment of students including for the academic session 2014-15. Such decision shall be taken by the DGCA within a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the DGCA should now take a fresh decision regarding grant of renewal of approval to the petitioner No. 1 and allow enrollment of students including for the academic session 2014-15. Such decision shall be taken by the DGCA within a period of 30 days. Since the new academic session is round the corner, petitioner No. 2 and other representatives of petitioner No. 1 shall appear before the DGCA along with all supporting documents with a period of 15 days from today on a date to be fixed by the DGCA. DGCA shall give adequate hearing to the petitioner No. 2 and other representatives of petitioner No. 1 and pass appropriate order(s) as indicated above within a period of 30 days in accordance with law, keeping in mind the various orders passed by this court from time-to-time and the observations made in this order, and taking into account the overall interest of the students of the North Eastern Region, which is admittedly an educationally backward region of the country. 28. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. …………………….