Madras High Court
S.Vijayakumar vs Union Of India on 23 December, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Petition (MD)No.9732 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 S.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 2.The Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 3.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. 4.The Director, Airport Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 5.Spicejet Airways, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Murasoli Maran Towers, No.73, M.R.C.Nagar Main Road, Chennai-600 028. 6.Jet Airways, rep.by its Chief Executive Officer, Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 099. 7.Air India, rep.by its Director, 19, Rukmini Laxmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents (Respondents 5 to 7 were impleaded as per order dated 12.12.2014, made in MP(MD)No.2/2013 & MP(MD)No.1/2014.) Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to reconsider and grant clearance for air connectivity to Singapore, Dubai and other locations and to provide better domestic air connectivity from Madurai to all Metro Cities. (prayer amended as per order dated 12.12.2014, made in MP(MD)No.2 of 2014) !For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan ^For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, 1 and 2 Asst.Solicitor General of India. For Respondent-4: Mr.C.Godwin with Mr.V.Jeyapragash For Respondent-5: Mr.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent-7: Mr.K.Muralidharan :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN,J) Heard Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.R.Jeyapragash with Mr.C.Godwin, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr.K.Muralidharan, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Though the 6th respondent were duly served, none appears for them.
2.This pro bono publico has been filed by a practising Advocate, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to reconsider and grant clearance for air connectivity to Singapore, Dubai and other locations and to provide better domestic air connectivity from Madurai to all Metro Cities.
3.The averments set out by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:
(a)Today, air travel has become essential, even for a common man, due to the drastic changes set out by the Civil Aviation Ministry, the 1st respondent herein. Initially, Madurai Airport was used by the Royal Air Force, during the II-World War in 1942 and the first passenger flight was operated in the year 1956. Boeing 737 flight was operated from Madurai in 1970, by Indian Airlines. Due to the impact of the Information Technology, many persons from the southern districts of Tamil nadu, especially belong to Madurai, Dindigul, Theni, Virudhunagar, Ramanathapuram and Sivagangai Districts, are moving out of their native places to Chennai and Bangalore and such Engineers are being sent by multinational companies to various parts of the World, especially to U.S.A., U.K., Singapore, Dubai, Australia and Japan, leaving no place in the world and such persons are given the benefit of Non-
Residential Indian status, thereby generating a major part of revenue for the Country.
(b)Having found that the small airport at Madurai was not sufficient to cater to the needs of the people, belonging to South India and also not able to handle more number of flights, especially international flights, the present magnificent Airport Terminus was built, at a cost of Rs.130 Crores. After the present terminus was inaugurated in November, 2010, the 1st respondent had granted permission for operating direct flights to Sri Lanka from Madurai, by the 5th respondent Airways andthe Srilankan Airways, in the months of October, 2012 and December, 2012.
(c)From the statistics available in the website of the 1st respondent, it is seen that when compared to Coimbatore Airport, which operates direct flights to Singapore, Dubai, etc., had only 10,134 passengers in the month of January, 2013, whereas Madurai Airport handled about 7,171 passengers in the same month, when it operates only two international flights to Sri Lanka.
(d)As the tourism sector in the international level has improved, tourists coming from other countries are interested to visit heritage places in the southern parts of Tamilnadu, like Meenakshiamman Temple in Madurai, Rameshwaram, hill station Kodaikkanl, Munar, Chettinad, etc. and therefore more air connectivity to Madurai from other international airports are very much essential. But, unfortunately, the 1st respondent has failed to take note of Madurai Airport, which is now connected with only three metro cities of our country. Therefore, having represented to the respondents on 09.04.2013 and further on 06.05.2013 and finding so much of difficulties and inconvenience not only to air travel passengers and the common man and the people in the southern region of the State of Tamilnadu, the petitioner has come before this Court with this public interest litigation for the aforesaid relief.
4.On the above stated pleadings and the information available, we have heard the counsel for the parties.
5.The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, in principle, agreed that the operational system now available in Madurai Airport is not commensurate with the passengers need and the public concerned. Mr.Mohan, Regional Manager of Air India, Madurai Airport, who is present before this Court, expressed the need for the increase in the flight operational facilities by the Air India but, at the same time, it is for the appropriate authority to take a decision and he is not the competent authority to take any decision in this regard.
6.We have given our thoughtful consideration on the issue of public importance raised in this writ petition with regard to providing more air travel operational facilities to Madurai Airport from other parts of the country as well at international level.
7.We have our own personal experience as Judges of this Court as well as passengers travelling in flights from Madurai to Chennai and Chennai to New Delhi and other parts of the Country that at times we find it very difficult to plan our programme, after court hours, due to non availability of flights from Madurai. It is informed by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned members of the Bar and the litigants those who are present in the Court as well as every stakeholders, travelling as passengers in flights, also that there is immediate need for improvement in the operational facilities from Madurai.
8.Therefore, the matter requires immediate attention of the authorities concerned, like Civil Aviation Ministry, Government of India and the 2nd respondent, namely Director General of Civil Aviation and the Chairman of the Airports Authority of India and the Director of Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport and the Director of Air India, which is the Government Airlines, besides private airlines like Spicejet and Jet Airways and Indigo, a private airline in operation in the southern parts of India. The operation of Madurai Airport and comparison of the passenger traffic with other airports in Tamil Nadu, like Coimbatrore, as of now, is also a factor to be considered by the authorities to improve the flight operational facilities at Madurai, more particularly to invite international tourists to heritage places in the southern parts of Tamilnadu, like Meenakshi Temple at Madurai, pilgrimage temple of Rameshwaram, hill stations like Kodaikkanal and Munar and historical places like Chettinad and other heritage centres in and around Madurai. It is pertinent to point out that improving tourism in our country is one of the policy sought to be implemented in order to augment revenue for the Government.
9.In the above stated position, though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents come out with a suggestion that they may require some time to file a counter in this matter, considering the plight of the air passengers now focused and that too in view of the stopping of operation of private airlines (5th respondent), it is necessary to take immediate decision to improve the operation facilities, in the larger public interest, in Madurai Airport. Therefore, both in the interest of the revenue as well as in improving public service, it would be appropriate that the respondents shall pay more attention to the issue and accordingly take a decision to have more number of flight operations from and out of Madurai to other countries as well as other cities in the country.
10.It is represented that at present, Air India is operating one flight daily, which is a mid-day flight, between Chennai and Madurai. According to Mr.Mohan, Regional Manager of Air India, Madurai Airport, the said flight departs Chennai at 12.20 p.m. and lands at Madurai at 1.20 p.m and from Madurai it departs at 2.00 p.m. and reaches Chennai at 3.00 p.m. and thereafter proceeds to Mumbai. If that could be the position, the present operational time of Air India flight is not suitable and conducive to common passengers, bureaucrats, businessmen, including the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court. Therefore, it is utmost important and there is need for the change of flight time of Air India. Instead of keeping the operation in the mid-day, it may be changed to morning hours or evening hours to facilitate every stakeholders in the southern part of the State of Tamil Nadu to utilise the said facility and to serve the people of this Area.
11.Considering the importance of the matter, we direct the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Director General of Civil Aviation, in consultation with the Chairman, Airports Authority of India, to have immediate discussion with the Chairman of Air India and take a decision, at the earliest, to have immediate operational arrangement between Chennai and Madurai, by changing the mid-day flight as morning hours or evening hours flight, preferably between 7.00 to 9.00 a.m. in the morning or 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. in the evening. We hope that the respondent will take this suggestion of the Court as an positive information to take a decision in order to serve the people of the southern part of the State of Tamil Nadu, by paying utmost attention and taking into account the immediate need. We hope that the learned counsel for the respondents will apprise the entire situation, as stated above, with the respective respondents.
12.The writ petition stands disposed of, with the above observations and directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Registry is directed to send copies of this order to respondents 1 to 4 and 7, directly.
Index:yes (V.D.P.,J) (V.M.V.,J) Internet:yes 23.12.2014 gb V.DHANAPALAN,J and V.M.VELUMANI,J gb To: 1.The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 2.The Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. 3.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi. 4.The Director, Airport Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 5.The Director, Air India 19, Rukmini Laxmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. WP(MD)No.9732/2013