Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Indian Commercial Pilots Association vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2015

Author: T.S.Sivagnanam

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, T.S.Sivagnanam

        

 
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras 
						
Dated: 29.07.2015

Coram:

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,  CHIEF JUSTICE
and 
The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

Writ Appeal No.958 of 2006

Indian Commercial Pilots Association
Airlines House (Regional Office)
Meenambakkam,
Chennai 600 027
represented by its President (Chennai Base)
Captain Rohan Kailasam						.. Appellant  
versus
1.Union of India
represented by The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Civil Aviation,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 003.

2.The Director General of Civil Aviation
Technical Centre,
Opposite Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi.

3.Jet Airways India Limited,
represented by its General Manager
S.M.Centre, Andheri, Kurla Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai 400 099.				     .. Respondents
						-----

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 14.06.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.37906 of 2005, on the file of this Court.
					---
	For Appellant	: Mr.George Cheiyan
	For Respondents  	: Mr.Su.Srinivasan
					Assistant Solicitor General for R.1 and R.2
				  Mr.S.Ravi for R.3
						-----

J U D G M E N T

(Order made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) Learned Assistant Solicitor General points out that as per his instructions, the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 01.09.2014 stands superseded by the subsequent CAR dated 27.10.2009.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the offending provisions are more or less the same. Be that as it may, the challenge would have to be laid to the new CAR dated 27.10.2009, and thus, the present appeal has worked itself out on account of the earlier CAR being superseded.

3. The appeal is thus disposed of as infructuous.

4. We are however inclined to accept the request of the learned counsel for the appellant that if he is advised to challenge the new CAR, this court may itself entertain the petition rather than the learned Single Judge dealing with the same.

Index : yes/no (S.K.K., CJ.) (T.S.S.,J.) 29.07.2015 ksr To

1. The Secretary to Government Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 003.

2.The Director General of Civil Aviation Technical Centre, Opposite Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi.

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

(ksr) W.A.No.958 of 2006 29.07.2015