Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief against the rejection of its application for a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to construct a building up to a height of 461 meters AMSL. The petitioner prays for an extension of height benefits similar to those granted to M/s Gurnani Inn Pvt. Ltd., based on the aeronautical study conducted in its case. Furthermore, the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Designated Officer and the Appellate Committee and seeks a direction to conduct an aeronautical study to determine the permissible height for construction. The petitioner also contends that Clause 6.2 of the Aeronautical Study Guidelines (Aerodrome Safeguarding Circular (ADSAC) 05 of 2020) is ultra vires the 2015 Rules, as it imposes unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions, rendering it unconstitutional.

b. It is submitted that the petitioner's argument that an Aeronautical Study should have been conducted to determine the shielding criteria for permitting a higher height is untenable, as Aeronautical Studies are not applicable in cases where there is a clear violation of NOC norms. c. The Committee noted that conducting an Aeronautical Study (AS) under Para 5 of Schedule II of GSR 751(E) read with GSR 770(E) was not permissible in such cases where the construction had already been completed in violation of the height clearance norms. d. It is submitted that a similar legal issue had arisen earlier in Writ Petition (C) No. 11829/2016, where a petitioner who had violated NOC conditions sought an Aeronautical Study to regularize the excess height. The High Court, in its judgment dated 30.01.2018, observed that the term "Existing Object" was not defined in Para 5 of Schedule II of GSR 751(E) at the time. This legal gap allowed for ambiguity regarding whether unauthorized construction/s could be subjected to an Aeronautical Study post-facto. To address this issue and prevent unauthorized constructions from benefiting from post-construction Aeronautical Studies, the Government of India amended GSR 751(E) through GSR 770(E) on 17.12.2020. This amendment provided a clear definition of "Existing Objects", stating that only structures constructed with a valid NOC qualify as existing objects. This amendment effectively barred any post-facto regularization of unauthorized constructions through an Aeronautical Study. e. The petitioner's NOC application was officially rejected on 16.10.2023, primarily on the ground that a building with a top elevation of 445.5 meters AMSL had already been constructed at the site, exceeding the maximum permissible height of 431.34 meters AMSL as per the aviation regulations. Since the Petitioner's structure was already in violation, the regulatory authorities could not grant an NOC for an unauthorized construction, nor could they conduct an Aeronautical Study for an object that did not fall within the definition of "Existing Objects" under the amended GSR 770(E).

5.1.5 Guidelines are available at NOCAS at www.aai.aero. 5.2 Communication Navigation Surveillance (CNS) Simulation study: In case any structure is required to be made within aerodrome· premises (airside and city side) by the Aerodrome Operator which creates obstruction from CNS point of view, a simulation study could be carried out to study the impact of this structure on the performance of the relevant facility and in case the study confirms that the impact would not hamper the operability of the facility, such structure could be permitted within the aerodrome premises."
or...... "

Basis which, it is contended, that an Aeronautical Study is not permissible in cases where no valid No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been issued.

40. The said contention is unmerited for multiple reasons. Firstly, the said contention does not detract from the conclusion in KGA Investments (supra) that an Aeronautical Study would be conducted as may be required on a "case to case basis".