Delhi High Court - Orders
Aero Club Of India vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 December, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9414/2022,CM APPLs. 28166/2022, 28167/2022
AERO CLUB OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rajiv Pratap Rudy & Mr. Yashvardhan
Bandi, Advs. (M-8587010491)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC, Ms.
Ashi Sharma and Mr. Ved Prakash,
Advocates for UOI. (M:8448438901)
Mr. Digvijay Rai, Ms. Archana Surve,
Mr. Kamal Kishore, Mr. Aman Yadav
and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates for
R-2. (M:9412636726)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 07.12.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Aero Club of India, which is a leading club in the civil aviation sector, incorporated in the year 1910. The Petitioner claims a long legacy in providing aviators' licenses and recognition to other flying clubs across the country.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that it used to operate from the premises of the Airport Authority of India, near the Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. Upon the expiry of the lease, the Petitioner was evicted from the said premises. The said eviction order dated 16th June, 2017 passed by the Eviction Officer, in Eviction Case No.12/2016 titled "Airports Authority of India v. Aero Club of India" came to be challenged before a ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 5403/2017. The said writ petition was dismissed vide Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:10.12.2022 14:40:46 order dated 4th July, 2017.
4. Thereafter, demands notices have been issued and an order has been passed, by the AAI, for the period of 2013-2017, on the ground that the Petitioner was occupying the property illegally. The total amount demanded by the AAI is approximately to the tune of Rs.4.35 crores.
5. On the last date, i.e., 3rd June, 2016, the Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit explaining the inordinate period of latches. The said affidavit has now been filed and perused by the Court.
6. Some of the submissions made in the present petition, as also, in the said affidavit are that clubs which are similarly placed as the Petitioner, have been granted recognition in different locations, including Amritsar, Ranchi, Nagpur, and Guwahati, have all been charged license fee at Rs.1 retrospectively. However, the Petitioner has been singled out by the Respondents.
7. It is also submitted, on behalf of the Petitioner, that there was a proposal for extension of the lease in respect of the Petitioner for a period of 33 years. However, the same was kept in abeyance, sometime in the year 2015-2016, leading to the eviction of the Petitioner.
8. Issue notice. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents accepts notice.
9. Let the counter affidavit be filed by the Respondent, responding to the averments in the writ petition, as also, averments in the additional affidavit filed by the Respondents. The objection as to latches may be raised in the counter affidavit.
10. List on 22nd May, 2023.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J DECEMBER 7, 2022/dj/ad Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:10.12.2022 14:40:46