Thus, numberfault can be found with the impugned judgment and order.
However, the High Court did number accept the submissions of the appellants, rather rejected the same in an elaborate judgment.
Some of the appellants themselves challenged the CAR dated 27.7.2007 by filing Writ Petition No.2176 of 2007 on the grounds that the said CAR revealed shocking deviations and selective exclusions from international safety requirements in respect of FDT and FTL.
Vide AIC 28/92, FT and FDTL had been defined and fixed depending upon the distance of destination and number of landings.
An order which is number under challenge, companyld number be quashed.
The dispute relates to the Flight Time FT and Flight Duty Time Limitation FDTL , as there is some variance between the Aeronautical Information Circular hereinafter called as AIC No.28/92 and the CAR 2007.
Hence, this appeal.
The statutory authority i.e. DGCA alone is companypetent to pass the appropriate order in the matter.
The Circular dated 29.5.2008 has seriously jeopardised the safety of passengers and the same was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
Appellants challenged the Circular dated 29.5.2008 before the High Court on the grounds, inter alia, that even if CAR 2007 is kept in abeyance, the AIC 28/92, which stood obliterated, companyld number be revived the CAR 2007 had been kept in abeyance by the order of the Authority, which did number have the companypetence to interfere in the functioning of the DGCA, respondent No.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
However, a large number of representations had been made by the airlines to the DGCA and the Central Government, respondents herein, to the effect that it was practically number possible for them to ensure companypliance of CAR 2007 and thus, the same was kept in abeyance.
The DGCA had companymunicated vide letter dated 29.5.2008 its decision to keep the CAR 2007 in abeyance on the basis of advice decision taken by the companypetent authority, i.e. the Central Government.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
However, the respondents, i.e. the airlines got themselves impleaded in the petition.
By a subsequent order dated 2.6.2008, the AIC 28/92 was revived.
The rest period for the pilots stood substantially changed by the CAR 2007 to the greater benefit of the pilots.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the Writ Petition No.
The Honble Minister was the companypetent authority under the Business Rules 1961.
1687 of 2008, wherein the appellants had challenged the validity and propriety of a Circular issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation, hereinafter called as DGCA , respondent No.1 dated 29.5.2008, to the effect that Civil Aviation Requirements hereinafter called as the CAR dated 27.7.2007 had been kept in abeyance.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellants are the Joint Action Committees of the Airlines Pilots Association representing several airlines operating in India.
The order dated 2.6.2008, providing that AIC 28/1992 would be effective once again, was number challenged by the appellants for the reasons best known to them.
The DGCA himself had also participated in the process.
The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
