1 srk pil-31-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 31 OF 2009 M/s. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association through its present office bearers: 1. Mr. Avinash Tukaram More and others. ... Petitioners Versus The Director General of Civil Aviation and others.... Respondents Ms. Asha Nimhan i/by Mr. V.J. Hegde for the petitioners. Mr. Dhiren H. Shah with Ms. P. Mani Bajpai i/by Mr. Dhiiren H. Shah for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S. Kulkarni with Ms. Poornima Advani and Mr. H.V. Kode i/by M/s. The Law Point for respondent No.2. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhavin Maneck i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Friday, February 04, 2011 P .C. In February, 2009, the petitioner which is NGO dedicated to provide a common platform to the grievance of the Air Passengers moved this Court praying for the directions to respondent No.1 to regulate and reduce the number of air traffic movements at Chhatrapati Shivaji Airport, Mumbai in such a manner so as to reduce the congestion and waiting period for each aircraft, either landing or taking off, to zero or as near to zero as possible and simultaneously to also stringently ensure maximum safety and security of the Aircrafts, crew and public at large as recommenced in the Roy Paul Committee's report annexed to the petition and also to reduce the wastage of the aviation fuel and reduce emmission of unnecessary pollutants in the atmosphere. 2 srk pil-31-09.sxw 2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have, from time to time, filed affidavits indicating various measures adopted and steps taken to redress the grievance voiced in the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the respondents have started taking steps to ensure maximum safety of the passengers, crew and aircrafts and also to reduce the congestion. It is submitted that the present situation is far more satisfactory than what it was two years back when the petition was filed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the affidavits, we are of the view that this PIL is required to be disposed of after taking a note of the steps taken by the respondents. Petition accordingly, stands disposed of. 5. It is clarified that this order is only for the limited purpose of disposing of the PIL and may not be treated as concluding the various issues sought to be raised in the petition, especially as the petitioner has not invited our attention to anything contrary to what is stated by the respondents. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.