IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1641 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25475/2011 Dated 27/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ IATA AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,(IAAI), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR.BIJI EAPEN, IAAI BHAVAN, 39/4012-K&L, KARIMPATTA ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, COCHIN-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.S.SHEEJA KUMARY(AYOOR) SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. IATA INDIA, REP.BY ITS COUNTRY MANAGER- INDIA & NEPAL INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 101, HDO CORPORATE ENCLAVE, 'B' WING, B.D.SAWANT MARG, CHAKALA, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400 099. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION, TECHNICAL CENTRE, OPP.SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110 003. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.C.J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------------- W.A.No.1641 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Ag.C.J. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to issue the direction sought for by the appellant against Director General of Civil Aviation and the Central Government. At the admission stage, the learned Assistant Solicitor General took notice for respondents and we have heard him also. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Solicitor General and on going through the judgment, we do not find any justification for interfering with the judgment because the learned Single Judge found that the 2nd respondent has no justification to regulate relationship between accredited travel agents and air companies appointing them. So far as appellant's claim for membership in the association constituted by the 1st respondent W.A.No.1641/2011 2 also, the learned Single Judge found that the 2nd respondent has no authority to issue direction to the 1st respondent. 3. The appellant's counsel brought to our notice the provisions of Air Craft Act, 1934 and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly Rule 135 wherein the Director General is the authority to interfere in a case where airline charges excessive tariff. We do not find any specific allegation against any airline by the appellant. We, therefore, close the Writ Appeal but with the observation that if the appellant files any application with specific reference to statutory provisions or the Rules enabling 2nd respondent to issue any kind of direction to any airline operating in India he should consider the same. However, we make it clear that any intervention by the 2nd respondent should be authorised by the provisions of the Act and Rules and should not amount to unnecessary interference with airline operations by private carriers. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Acting Chief Justice) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/2/11