1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1909 of 2009 The Indian Pilots Guild & ors. ... Petitioners versus The Director General of Civil Aviation and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.Rohit Kapadia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.V.B.SIngh, S.K. Singhvi i/b Bennet D’Costa for the petitioners. Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General with Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.Abhay Kulkarni with Mr.G.I.Mesthe, Ms.I. Sen i/b Gagrats for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 25th August 2010 P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the dispensations dated 26 th August 2008 and 28 th August 2008 applicable to the respondent no.3 and respondent no.4. Petitioner no.1 is a Trade Union of Pilots working with respondent no.3 and petitioner no.2 is an association of Pilots working with respondent no.4 - Director General of Civil Aviation issued at Aeronautical Information Circular on Flight Duty Time and Flight Time Limits (AIC 28/96) on 10 th December 1992 that continued in force till the year 2002. On 27 th July 2007, respondent no.1 i.e. Director General of Civil Aviation, issued Flight Crew Standards, Series “J” Part III which was made effective from 16 th August 2007. CAR 2007 was however kept in abeyance by the respondent no.1 by a circular dated 29 th May 2008. That was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.1687 of 2008. That writ petition was decided by order dated 14 th August 2008. The Division Bench has held that the CAR 2007 was suspended because the respondent no.1 wanted to bring in force a new region. It was also held that suspension of the 2007 CAR revived AIC 28/92. The Division Bench held that the revival of AIC 28/92 is an interim arrangement. The Court found that the action of the respondents of suspending CAR 2007 and reviving AIC 28/92 is valid. We have been informed that this judgment is challenged in the Supreme Court and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court. In this situation, the respondent no.1 issued dispensations dated 26 th August 2008 and 28 th August 2008 which have the result of relaxing certain conditions 3 contained in AIC 28/92. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides in detail. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 stated before us that revival of AIC 28/92 as held by the Division Bench of this Court is a temporary arrangement till the new regime comes into force and therefore, the dispensations which are challenged in this petition are also a temporary feature. He submitted that an expert committee has already been constituted for making recommendations for framing of a new CAR and the report of that expert committee is likely to be received by the respondent no.1 within a period of about four weeks from today. He further stated that after receiving the report it will be processed in accordance with law and the new CAR will be in place within a period of approximately five months from the date of receipt of the report of the expert committee. He further submitted that according to the respondents though it is not necessary for the respondent no.1 to hear the petitioner before issuing the dispensations, respondent no.1 is willing to consider a representation if made by the petitioner to the dispensations dated 26 th August 2008 and 28 th August 2008 in a time bound manner. The statements made by the learned Additional Solicitor General are accepted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that so far as the statement of the learned Solicitor General regarding 4 making a new CAR effective is concerned, it is not the subject matter of this petition and therefore it is not necessary for this Court to make any direction in that regard in this petition. He however submitted that a direction to the respondent no.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner in relation to the dispensations will be in the interest of justice and should be issued by the Court. He however vehemently submitted that till that representation is considered, operation of the dispensations should be stayed. 5. In our opinion, the request made on behalf of the petitioner to stay the operation of the dispensations dated 26 th August 2008 and 28 th August 2008 till the representation to be made by the petitioner against it is considered by the respondent no.1 cannot be granted because those dispensations have come into force in August 2008. The petitioner filed this petition in September 2009. Those dispensations have been in force and operative for the last nearly two years. In our opinion, therefore, specially considering that the respondent no.1 is willing to consider the representation to be made by the petitioner urgently, it will not be appropriate to stay the operation of the dispensations. So far as the objection of the petitioner that no direction should be made in relation to the new CAR to be brought into force is concerned, we do not propose to make any direction. We are merely recording the statements made by the learned Addl. Solicitor General before us in relation thereto and in our opinion, that aspect of the matter is relevant 5 only for the purpose of considering the submission made on behalf of the respondents that that arrangement that is presently in force is a temporary arrangement pending bringing into effect of the new CAR 6. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion following order would meed the ends of justice O R D E R (i) Petitioner to submit their representation to the respondent no.1 indicating their objection to the dispensations dated 26 th August 2008 and 28 th August 2008 within a period of two weeks from today with copies thereof to the respondent nos.3 and 4. (ii) Respondent nos.3 and 4 may submit their point of view to the respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving copy of the representation. Respondent no.1 thereafter shall dispose of the representation by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of four weeks from the date on which response of the respondent nos.3 and 4 to the representation of the petitioner is received. These directions, we have issued, in view of the statement made by learned Addl. Solicitor General which statement has been made by him without prejudice to the contention of the respondent that it is not necessary for the respondent no.1 to grant any opportunity of 6 hearing to anybody before issuing an order making dispensations. (iii) The submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General that the report of the expert committee is likely to be received within a period of four weeks from today and that on receiving the report of the expert committee final CAR will be issued as far as possible within a period of five months from the report of the expert committee is accepted. (iv) The learned Addl. Solicitor General has stated before us that the statements that he has made before us and which we have recorded have been made by him after receiving instructions from the Officer of the respondent no.1 who is present in Court. (v) The remedies in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order that the respondent no.1 may make in relation to the representation are kept open. Similarly, all contentions available to both the sides are also kept open. Petition disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)