Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Capacity constraints at Terminal-1, and, Terminal-2 after renovations being available for shifting/re-location, 'DIAL', in the first instance, attempted to have consensus amongst the three domestic airlines i.e. 'IndiGo', Spicejet and Go Air for the operation of their flights from Terminal-1 and Terminal-2. Said three airlines having failed to reach a consensus or even propose the flights that may be relocated from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, 'DIAL', vide its letter dated 16.8.2017 proposed to distribute traffic between Terminal-1 and Terminal-2 in such a manner that 1/3rd of their existing flights were handled and operated from Terminal-2 on pro-rata basis and sought response from any or all the three airlines by 31.8.2017, failing which, it would be constrained to allocate the flights to be shifted from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, setting out the deadline for relocation and shifting of flight operations w.e.f. 1.10.2017. 'IndiGo' vide its letter dated 30.8.2017, expressed reservation on the premise that its critical concerns and queries were not discussed, clarified or addressed and that, it did not have adequate time to plan and properly execute a terminal move, without creating mass confusion for its customers, and, that, once a mutually acceptable plan was agreed, it will need a minimum of 120 days to implement such plan. 'DIAL', vide its letter dated 6.9.2017 however, conveyed its decision to 'IndiGo' for operation of its flights to Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru from Terminal-2 w.e.f. 29.10.2017. 'IndiGo' opposed. Vide its letter dated 28.9.2017, 'DIAL' then communicated to 'IndiGo' that Go Air was shifting its entire operations from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2 w.e.f. 29.10.2017 and that, w.e.f. 29.10.2017, the flights of 'IndiGo', Spicejet and Go Air operating to Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru shall be operating from Terminal-2. During this course, Go Air shifted its entire operations to Terminal-2. Vide its letter dated 5.10.2017, 'DIAL' reiterated that flights of 'IndiGo' and Spicejet operating to Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru, should be operated from Terminal-2 w.e.f. 29.10.2017. It was followed by another letter of 'DIAL' dated 21.10.2017, conveying to 'IndiGo' that it should plan its activities in a manner that from 4.1.2018, the flights of 'IndiGo' operating to and fro Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru should operate from Terminal-2 only, failing which, 'IndiGo' shall be solely responsible for all the consequences. It has resulted into filing of the instant petition.

Airlines 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 INDIGO 6.6 7.1 9.1 12.1 16.1 18.1 SPICEJET 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.6 4.3 4.9 GOAIR 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.6 4.0 TOTAL 12.9 13.9 15.9 18.8 24.0 27.0 Referring to the afore-going data, 'DIAL' says that during the period of re-development of Terminal-1, it would reduce boarding gates from 15 to 10 and aircraft parking stand from 55 to 33, bringing down the capacity of Terminal-1 to 13 mppa and that, with additional measures, the capacity can be brought upto maximum of 17 mppa and that, with the 'IndiGo's traffic in financial year 2017-18, which is estimated at 18.1 mppa approx., 'IndiGo' cannot operate entirely either out of Terminal-1 (capacity of 17 mppa) or Terminal-2 (capacity of 12 mppa). 'DIAL' also says that, even with the shifting of operations of Go Air to Terminal-2, the traffic at Terminal-1 is expected to be approx. 23 mppa, which would be in excess of maximum existing capacity of 20 mppa, which requires to be further reduced to between 13 to 17 mppa. 'DIAL' also says that peak fog season in January causes flight delays resulting in an increased pressure on the infrastructure of the terminal and endangers the safety and security of the passengers as well as the flights operations and therefore, 'IndiGo's financial concerns cannot take priority over public interest of development. As for Go Air only having been moved to Terminal-2 completely from 29.10.2017, 'DIAL' says, it agreed, considering various factors such as (i) safety and security of passengers and efficient flight operations, as T-1 was handling traffic much above its capacity; (ii) adamancy of the 'IndiGo' and Spicejet in not shifting their operations to T-2; and, (iii) the quantum of Go Air's operations vis-a-vis balancing the capacity between T-1 and T-2. It is also said that 'IndiGo' has been avoiding the shift of its part operations from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2 on some pretext or the other since 4.1.2017, constraining 'DIAL' to change the deadline for three times, while, 'DIAL' never gave any preferential treatment to either of the three airlines and that, while 'IndiGo' and Spicejet adamantly refused to shift part operations to Terminal-2 in October, 2017, Go Air expressed its willingness to shift and additionally requested to shift its complete operation to Terminal-2 and that was acceded to, being conscious of the fact that traffic at Terminal-1 had increased approx. 3 mppa, since the time, the proposal of shifting 1/3rd flights operations was given to the three airlines and it would aid in decongesting Terminal-1 in the interest of public safety, safety of flights operations and the re-development activity. 'DIAL' has furnished the estimated remaining traffic at Terminal-1, on the shifting of traffic of three sectors i.e. Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru, of 'IndiGo' and Spicejet during the financial year, as follows :

9. Spicejet, on its part, being at par with 'IndiGo' for operational difficulties, adverts to the various challenges in operating from Terminal-2. Spicejet on its part however, equally expresses its concern for 'IndiGo', exclusively operating from Terminal-1.

10. Mr. Rohtagi, ld. Sr. counsel for 'IndiGo', strenuously contended that the impugned direction/decision of 'DIAL' was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustifiable. In his submissions, in view of the operational capacity of Terminal-2, both Go Air and Spicejet, keeping in view their traffic load and the operations, as per the own data provided by 'DIAL', could be accommodated there and 'IndiGo' could continue to operate from Terminal-1 and that, it was the most viable solution to the whole issue, and, that, it would not only help smooth operations of the three airlines, but, the public as well. In his submissions, such most obvious and viable solution, for the reasons unexplained, has come to be ignored by 'DIAL' and that, it reflects arbitrariness in the impugned decision. In the second limb of his submissions, Mr. Rohtagi also contended that the impugned decision was not an outcome of any scientific study or elaborate deliberations with the stakeholders including 'IndiGo', inasmuch as, the decision to shift the entire operations of Go Air and part operations of three sectors of Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru to Terminal-2, is not the outcome of any well founded assessments carried out for the purpose by 'DIAL'. It was also contended that with the impugned decision getting implemented, the operations of 'IndiGo' will get further divided into three i.e. Terminal-1, Terminal-2 and Terminal-3 and it would get subjected to further operational difficulties, besides much inconvenience to the passengers, while, there was no other airline, which was required to spread its operations in this fashion and that, it was not justifiable, but, arbitrary. Mr. Rohtagi pointed out that Go Air, Vistara, Jet Airways, Air Asia and Air India, were operating only from Terminal-1. In his submissions therefore, the impugned decision was an outcome of unfairness, unreasonableness and improportionality and thereby, discriminatory, as well. In his submissions therefore, such decision, though administrative, was subject to judicial review.

14. The impugned administrative decision relates to shifting of flight operations of IndiGo, Spicejet and Go Air from one terminal to the other, which is undisputedly necessitated, on account of development of IGI Airport, and, which is in public interest. It is a matter of record that the airport operator-'DIAL', at the threshold, in January, 2017, had given an opportunity to all the three airlines operating from Terminal-1 to reach a consensus for operations of their flights or even propose the flights that may be relocated from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, as a temporary measure. They failed either way, while, 'DIAL' continued to pursue, so that the process of renovations and expansion of Terminal-1 could be undertaken, at the earliest. It is a matter of record that in the absence of any progress, the Ministry of Civil Aviation took serious note of the situation and vide letter dated 14.6.2017, expressed its anguish for the severe capacity constraints at Terminal-1 on account of the increased demand of the Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) i.e. 'IndiGo', Spicejet and Go Air. In this letter, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, taking note of the continuing deadlock, which was causing inconvenience to the passengers, desired of 'DIAL' and the three airlines, to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement by 15.7.2017, failing which, gave liberty to 'DIAL' to decide the suitable course of action and that was to be binding on all the stakeholders including 'IndoGo'. Situation did not improve even thereafter. Deadlock persisting, as none of the airlines co-operated, 'DIAL' on its part so proceeded to ask the three airlines to distribute their traffic between Terminal-1 and Terminal-2 in such a manner, that 1/3rd of their existing flights were handled and operated from Terminal-2 on pro-rata basis, and, expected them or anyone of them to do so by 31.8.2017, failing which, it shall be constrained to allocate the flights to be shifted from Termial-1 to Terminal-2. Steps so taken by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and 'DIAL' do reflect all fairness in their approach for every attempt being made to accommodate the subject airlines, as far as possible. In the series of such follow up actions, the decision ultimately taken by 'DIAL' asking the airlines to operate flights to and fro Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru from Terminal-2, ignoring 'IndiGo's letter dated 30.8.2017, where-under, it had sought to agitate the issues of passengers' inconvenience; impact on their efficiency and increase in cost; and, the decision being anti-competitive, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be faulted with for being either unilateral or inequitable. None of the issues sought to be agitated by 'IndiGo' can be said to be in the larger public interest, which is sought to be pursued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and 'DIAL'. There is no denial of the fact that the traffic load of Terminal-1 was much beyond its capacity even as on 31.8.2017. IndiGo's assertion of passengers' inconvenience on account of shifting of arrival and departure from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, as its flights carry both inbound and outbound passengers, feeding IndiGo's entire network to/fro from Delhi, is more suggestive of its own commercial interests and its desire to operate from only one Terminal and that too, Terminal-1, inasmuch as, the capacity of Terminal-2 at the given time was 12 mppa as against IndiGo's traffic load of 16.1 mppa, which is estimated to be 18.1 mppa during the financial year 2017-18. In the given factual conspectus, Can the splitting of operations of 'IndiGo' be avoided even on being retained at Terminal-1 becomes the moot question for consideration? When one adverts on this aspect, it emerges that during the course of renovations and expansion of Terminal-1, 'DIAL', seeks to reduce boarding gates from 15 to 10 and parking stands from 55 to 33, bringing down the capacity of Terminal-1 to 13 mppa, which, with additional measures can be brought upto only 17 mppa. Thus, even if it is assumed so, such extended capacity would also not be sufficient to cater to the expanding traffic graph of 'IndiGo' , inasmuch as, the IndiGo's traffic for the financial year 2017-18, is estimated at 18.1 mppa. It therefore, imperative that 'IndiGo', in any case, requires shifting of some of its operations from Terminal-1. Convenience of passengers much contended to on behalf of 'IndiGo' would be a matter of concern of other airlines as well, even of smaller magnitude. The plea of passengers' inconvenience agitated by 'IndiGo' therefore, does not hold much water. Be that as it may, passengers' convenience and security is much of the concern of 'DIAL' than any airline. Any impact on the efficiency and increase in cost of the operations of the flights, in the given scenario, when the 'DIAL' requires shifting of some operations for the purposes of renovations and expansion with a view to decongest Terminal-1 in the interest of public safety and safety of flight operations, becomes irrelevant. If, 'IndiGo' has grown big and is going to be bigger than before, it has to share the responsibility not only towards the increase in cost, if, at all, it is called for, and, ensure efficiency thereby, of its own. As for the issue of anti-competitiveness, the assertion of 'IndiGo' that on account of the flights operations of three sectors getting shifted to a new terminal as against its competitors operating from Terminal-3 under one roof and enjoying homogenous operations, it ipso facto, equally does not sound well founded. Suffice to say, airlines in questions are Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) and have been operating under one roof only, but, as a temporary measure, they are being accommodated amongst two terminals i.e. Terminal-1 and Teminal-2 and therefore, the comparison and the element of competitiveness sought to be agitated, equally does not hold good. Be that as it may, none of the issues or the aspects sought to be agitated by 'IndiGo', in the considered opinion of this Court, falls within the domain of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts and circumstances, by no means, even indicate that 'DIAL' on its part acted unfairly or unreasonably. The impugned decision of 'DIAL' cannot be said to be unilateral for the simple reason that it took this decision, on account of any of the airlines, including 'IndiGo', failing to respond to its repeated requests and the proposals, inasmuch as, the operations of the airport is the prime responsibility of 'DIAL', which, it seeks to discharge. In that view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of Spicejet, does not survive and is rejected.