Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. But surprisingly, for the first time, the petitioner stated that they had undertaken an Aeronautical Study with the AAI inspite of no advice having been given by it to that effect. Thereafter, the petitioner had also issued a letter to the Chairman, AAI stating that they are required to approach AAI to urgently conduct an Aeronautical Study which is wholly contrary to the correspondence being exchanged. It was never its case that it was required to conduct an Aeronautical Study, but in fact, it was consistently advising the petitioner to have the field survey done by either Survey of India or Karnataka State Remote Sensing Application Centre (KSRSAC). Inspite of several reminders, the petitioner failed to conduct the survey through the Survey of India and therefore, on 21.6.2013, the petitioner was informed to alternatively contact the Director, KSRSAC to carry out the survey in order to avoid any further delay. On 25.6.2013, the 1st respondent was informed by the KSRSAC that they are willing to take up the field survey at the site of the petitioner and also that they had the requisite expertise to do so. Accordingly, it made a request dated 27.7.2013 to the KSRSAC to give priority to the survey proposed to be conducted by the petitioner. Obliging to its request, the KSRSAC issued a pre-revised bill on 29.7.2013 for the Digital Global Positioning Systems Field Survey Work to provide Latitude, Longitude and AMS levels. The survey was tentatively scheduled to be conducted on 5.8.2013. On 3.8.2013, the petitioner issued another letter to KSRSAC informing them that the survey should also include an Aeronautical Study to determine maximum permissible height and requested them to include charges for the Aeronautical Study in the pre-revised bill.