Gujarat High Court
Jayendrasinh Chauhan vs Director
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
JAYENDRASINH CHAUHAN....Petitioner(s)V/SDIRECTOR (TRAINING AND LICENSING) C/SCA/7316/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7316 of 2013 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7317 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd/- ======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ======================================================= JAYENDRASINH CHAUHAN....Petitioner(s) Versus DIRECTOR (TRAINING AND LICENSING) & 3...Respondent(s) ======================================================= Appearance: MR NM KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA Date : 24/04/2013 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Indian Aircraft Act for appropriate direction for the grant of application and also for restraining respondent authorities from initiating any action pursuant to the show cause notice.
Heard learned counsel, Shri N.M. Kapadia for the petitioner.
Learned counsel, Shri Kapadia has referred to the show cause notice at Annexure-E and submitted that there is no basis for issuance of such show cause notice. He has submitted that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction. He pointedly referred to the show cause notice and submitted that the provisions of the Aircraft Act are not attracted when the license is yet to be issued under the Aircraft Act. He therefore submitted that no penalty can be imposed as per the provisions of Act read with Rules. Learned counsel, Shri Kapadia referred to the papers and submitted that there was some mistake in submitting the application through agent, which was sought to be corrected and the petitioner went to USA to take necessary training and submitted fresh application, which has been wrongly interpreted. Learned counsel, Shri Kapadia also submitted that action with regard to logbooks can be initiated only regarding logbooks maintained by the Aircraft Act in India and it will not have any application with regard to the logbooks for flying hours at USA. He therefore submitted that though the petitioner is having actual flying hours of 285 as against required flying hours of 200, he has been denied the license and in fact, show cause notice has been issued. Learned counsel, Shri Kapadia also alternatively submitted that the application of the petitioner may be directed to be considered and there is no justification for non consideration of such an application for grant of license on the ground of proposed action under the Aircraft Act and Rules. He has also submitted that therefore the present petition may be allowed or alternatively application of the petitioner may be directed to be decided by the respondent no.1.
Though the submissions have been made, it is required to be mentioned that the background of the facts as revealed from the paper would make it clear that the petitioner is claiming commercial pilot license (CPL) from the respondent authorities. The show cause notice clearly referred to the alleged irregularity or misdeeds including the alleged tampering with the record or logbook and whether there is any violation of Aircraft Act or Rules have been made or not. As could be seen from the show cause notice itself that when it was sought to be confirmed from the authority at USA, it has been replied in negative, which reads as under :-
I am sorry this has taken so long but I wanted to be absolutely sure. This person was never attended our school these documents are not from us .
Therefore, reference to the proposed action under Section 12 of the Indian Aircraft Act, 1934 read with Rules 19 and 31 of the Aircraft Rules. It is also specifically stated in the show cause notice that fake documents and the wrongful information are given. With this background of facts and considering the fact that the commercial pilot license, which would enable the petitioner to get his job in the aviation industries allowing him to fly aircraft carrying the passenger is a matter, which cannot be taken lightly when there are serious doubts about his qualification and his license as well as training either at USA or in India. The submission made by learned counsel, Shri Kapadia that such show cause notice is without jurisdiction cannot be entertained at the threshold in asmuchas same contention could be raised before the authority and it can be considered by the authority themselves.
Another facet of argument referring to the fact of flying hours and the entry in the logbook are also the aspect, which requires a closer scrutiny on the basis of the material and evidence which this Court cannot enter into such details at this stage. It also requires examination of the details with reference to the technical aspects, for which, the present petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it is only a show cause notice issued for the proposed action. The petitioner will have every opportunity for presenting his case before the authority with all details including technical aspect and, therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained.
Another facet of submission that there is no rule to withhold the consideration of application for the license on the ground of proposed action under the statue is also misconceived in asmuchas when the proposed action is sought to be taken in exercise of statutory powers, the person like the petitioner, who alleged to have committed irregularity and/or violated the Act or the Rules or even the norms cannot claim that his application should be considered . In other words, what has been suggested is that the proposed action is sought to be preampted by consideration of application for issuance of license though prima facie there might be a ground or the material for suitable action. Therefore considering the aforesaid relevant facts and also public interest that a person whose qualification and training itself is questioned and doubted cannot knock the door of the court for the purpose of consideration of his application for the grant of commercial pilot license, which would be against the public interest as stated above. If such application is to be considered lightly, it may lead to allowing person a license without proper qualification and ultimately putting human lives in danger if such application or permission is considered lightly.
Therefore in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present petitions cannot be entertained and deserve to be dismissed in limine and accordingly stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Gautam Page 7 of 7