Mr Varun Bhat vs Government Of India on 12 March, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Varun Bhat vs Government Of India on 12 March, 2020

Bench: Abhay S. Oka

                          -1-



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

                       PRESENT

    THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

       WRIT PETITION NO.5670 OF 2020 (GM-RES) PIL

BETWEEN:

MR. VARUN BHAT
S/O MADHUKESHWAR BHAT,
AGED AROUND 35 YEARS,
R/A #S-749, 12TH CROSS, BHARATNAGAR,
2ND STAGE, OFF MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HARISH SASIKUMAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY,
'A' WING, I-III FLOOR, JANAPATH BHAVAN,
JANAPATH
NEW DELHI-110 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL

                                        ...RESPONDENT


    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ADDENDUM TO AVSEC ORDER No.5/2005 DATED
                                -2-



10TH JANUARY 2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
(ADDENDUM) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:



                             ORDER

Though the petition is called out on two occasions, the counsel for the petitioner is absent.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed as Public Interest Litigation. The challenge in the petition is to an addendum dated 10th January 2020 to AVSEC order No.5/2005 (Annexure-A). By this addendum, a prohibition was imposed on carrying electronic cigarettes in the premises of the Aerodromes and in the Aircrafts.

3. The case made out in the petition is that on 17th February 2020, when the petitioner was traveling from Bengaluru to Delhi by a flight, he was carrying his E-cigarette. On the basis of the impugned addendum, he was prevented from carrying E-cigarette in the Aircraft and therefore, the same was confiscated by CISF personnel.

-3-

4. Thus, the averments made in the petition show that the petitioner is personally aggrieved by the addendum. Moreover, challenge to a direction prohibiting carrying of E- cigarette in Aircrafts cannot be a subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation.

5. Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition as a Public Interest Litigation and the same is rejected.

However, the issue of legality and validity of the impugned addendum is kept open. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can always challenge the same by filing a fresh petition.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE rs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court