Jitendra Krishna Varma vs Director General Of Civil Aviation

2026:BHC-AS:22839-DB
WP-3360-2011.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3360 OF 2011
.. Petitioner
Jeetendra Krishna Varma
aged 46 years, adult, Indian inhabitant
presently residing at Pune
having address at : 102, Daisy
Apartment, Survey No. 85, Lalit Estate,
Inside Eminent Building Lane Barner
Pune – 411 045
V/S.
Director General of Civil Aviation
Govt. of India, Civil Aviation
Department, Opp: Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003
.. Respondent
-------------------
Mr. Mohan Bir Singh, a/w Rahul Jalan, i/b MBS & Co., for Petitioner.
Mr. Vinit Jain, a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, a/w Mr. Gaurav Mhatre, for
Respondent - DGCA.
--------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 29th APRIL 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th JUNE 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)
th
1. Taking exception to the order dated 12 March 2011, passed by
Respondent, i.e., the Director General of Civil Aviation, the Petitioner has
approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside
the said order dated 12th March 2011 by which the license of the petitioner
Bhalerao 1 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
came to be suspended by the Respondent, invoking clause (d) of Sub-Rule
(3) of Rule (19) of Aircraft Rules, 1937 read with Ministry of Tourism and
Civil Aviation Notification No. SO 727 (E) of October 1994.
2. Facts germane to the present petition are enumerated as under.
3. The petitioner had obtained a Commercial Pilot License (CPL) after
undergoing training at the Airline Asian Academy in Orlando, Florida, USA.
After completing his initial flying training in the USA, the petitioner returned
to India and applied for the endorsement of his CPL to the Respondent. After
necessary checks and verifications, the petitioner was issued a Commercial
Pilot License No. 1869 on 13th December 1988, which was renewed
periodically by the Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioner that initially,
the petitioner was employed with Air India as a trainee pilot and after
completing successful training with Air India and obtaining an endorsement
on his CPL for Airbus 310 Aircraft from the respondent, the petitioner was
appointed as a co-pilot in the year 1991 and was confirmed with effect from
1st November 1992. It is further the case that during his employment with
Air India, the petitioner was operating flights on regular basis and he
underwent checks on regular basis with diverse check pilots/instructors
licensed by the respondent to do so. It is further the case that for a period of
22 years, the petitioner was assessed and found to be a competent flyer by
each one of the check pilots/instructors who conducted said checks on the
Bhalerao 2 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
petitioner and also by hundreds of pilots with whom the petitioner flew
during the period of 22 years. It is further the case that considering his
experience, the petitioner became eligible to be considered for the issuance
of an Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) on having obtained his
experience of flying with Air India for almost about 7000 hours. It is further
the case that the Petitioner appeared for the test of ATPL in USA as well as in
India and was issued an ATPL Certificate dated 01/09/2010 by the FAA
(USA). It is the case that the petitioner after successfully completing the
tests and having gained requisite experience, he applied for an ATPL to the
Respondent and accordingly forwarded the application and requisite
documents to the respondent, who after verification of the documents issued
an ATPL bearing No. 4355. It is further the case that the petitioner had also
th st
undergone the license renewal checks on 16 May 2010 and 31 August
2010 with the DGCA approved examiner who had issued the certificate
certifying the petitioner to be fit for renewal of his license.
th
4. It is further the case that on or about 7 March 2011, a complaint was
filed by Crime Branch at New Delhi alleging that one Captain by name
Captain Parmindar Kaur Gulati had obtained the ATPL license on the basis of
forged documents and upon scrutiny, it was revealed that the result card of
the examination submitted by Captain Parmindar Gulati was forged and
therefore, a case came to be registered. On the basis of the said complaint,
th
the Petitioner was arrested on 12 March 2011 and was released on bail on
Bhalerao 3 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
19th March 2011. After the registration of the FIR, the petitioner received
the impugned order dated 12th March 2011, which is under challenge.
5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent supported the said
order and submitted that the order passed by the Respondent DGCA was
neither arbitrary nor illegal and that it was passed on merits, based on the
documents available on record. He further submitted that the Petitioner had
applied with Respondent for the ATPL Exam in January Session 2010, where
he remained absent and subsequently, he appeared in June 2010 Session,
wherein he was declared failed. He further submitted that despite this, the
petitioner submitted the forged mark-sheet bearing Roll No. 19250025 of
April 2010 Regular Session for ATPL Navigation Composite Paper. He further
submitted that the records indicated that the petitioner applied to appear in
ATPL Examination on 48 occasions from 2004 onwards to 2010 and out of
this, he was declared failed in 18 attempts and remained absent in the
remaining attempts. He further submitted that out of the minimum three
papers required to obtain an ATPL, he managed to pass only one paper,
mainly the Aviation Paper in 2009. He further submitted that on 3rd
September 2010, the petitioner submitted an application to the Respondent
No. 1 for issuance of ATPL and in that application, the petitioner had
mentioned his Roll No. 19250025 and had indicated that he had passed the
ATPL Air Navigation Composite Paper in April 2010 Regular Session.
However, as per the official record, the petitioner had not applied for or
Bhalerao 4 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
appeared in 2010 session ATPL Examination. In the light of the above, he
therefore submitted that it was quite evident that the petitioner was fully
aware of the factual position and despite that he furnished incorrect
information with the intention of obtaining an ATPL, which is in
contravention of Rule 39A (e) of the Aircraft Rules. He further submitted
that he had also given a declaration in the application dated 03/09/2010
that he had not suppressed or given any wrong information for obtaining the
license and that he is liable for appropriate action, if any information given
by him was found to be wrong, even at a later date. The learned counsel for
the Respondent further submitted that his application was duly processed
th
and ATPL No. 4355 was issued to the petitioner on 17 September 2010. He
further submitted that as it was revealed that the ATPL license had been
obtained on the basis of forged ATPL result, considering the mala fide intent
of the petitioner and in the interest of public safety to prevent any potential
misuse of the license, his license bearing No. 4355 was suspended vide order
dated 12th March 2011 invoking clause (d) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 19 of the
Aircraft Rules, 1937. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent therefore
submitted that no interference is called for.
6. The Petitioner filed his Affidavit in Rejoinder and denied the
contentions which were raised by Respondent in the reply. In the affidavit in
rejoinder, rebutting the contentions raised by the respondent, it was
submitted that the impugned order does not identify the document which is
Bhalerao 5 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
alleged to be a forged document and even the period of suspension has not
been mentioned, whereas the suspension under the rules can be only for a
specified period. In the rejoinder, it was submitted that the respondent had
introduced some new grounds which did not find place in the impugned
order such as lack of integrity on the part of the petitioner, consideration of
public interest and registration of the FIR. He further submitted that the
contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner had appeared for ATPL
Examination on 48 occasions between 2004 and 2010 and failed on 18
occasions and remained absent on 30 occasions is absolutely incorrect. He
submitted that petitioner was not even eligible to apply for nor did he apply
for ATPL prior to 2009 and therefore, the question of his having appeared or
failed at such an examination did not arise. The affidavit in rejoinder further
disputed the contention of the respondent that the mark-sheet is of a person
who passed with Roll No. 19250025 and that the petitioner had produced
the marksheet. He has further submitted that a perusal of the mark-sheet at
page 86 would reveal that it not only mentions his roll number, but also his
name is clearly mentioned with his address. He further submitted that
registration of an FIR cannot be a ground ipso facto for cancellation of the
license and it is only a conviction, which can be a ground for cancellation of
license. He further submitted that the FIR was filed by the Respondent on or
about 5th/6th April 2011, wherein the petitioner was not even named as an
accused in the said FIR. It is further submitted that the action taken by the
Bhalerao 6 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
respondent is squarely governed by the Enforcement Policy and Procedure
Manual, wherein it is required that a show-cause notice is to be issued which
has not been done in the present case.
7. Apart from the above, the essential grievance of the petitioner is that
as required under the rules, neither a show-cause notice was issued nor any
opportunity was given to the petitioner to give his say in respect of the
allegations which were made against him. The petitioner, therefore,
contended that the said order was illegal as it was in complete violation and
breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, therefore
beseeched, that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and the Ld. Counsel
for the respondent at length.
9. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it will be pertinent to
consider the relevant provision, which is required to be followed by the
licensing authority before taking any action with respect to disqualifying any
person from holding or obtaining a license. The first essential provision is
Rule 39 A of the Aircraft Rules, which reads as under:
39A. Disqualification from holding or obtaining a license: -
(1) Where the licensing authority is satisfied, after giving him
an opportunity of being heard, that any person -
(a) is habitually intemperate in the use of alcohol, or is an
addict of narcotics, drugs and the like, or
Bhalerao 7 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
(b) is using, has used or is about to use an aircraft in the
commission of a cognizable offence or in contravention of these
rules, or
(c) has, by his previous conduct as member of the crew of an
aircraft, shown that he is irresponsible [in the discharge of his
duties connected with his employment] or is likely to endanger
the safety of the aircraft or any person or thing carried therein,
or of other aircraft or persons or things on the ground, or
(d) is a habitual criminal or has been convicted by a Court in
India for an offence involving moral turpitude or an offence
which amounts to heinous crime, or
(e) has obtained the license, rating, aircraft type rating or
extension of aircraft type rating, or renewal of any of them by
suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong
information, or
(f) has authorisedly varied or tempered with the particulars
entered in a license or rating.
The licensing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, make an order disqualifying that person for a specified
period from holding or obtaining a license.
(2) The Central Government may debar a person permanently
or temporarily from holding [any license or rating mentioned
in] rule 38 if in its opinion it is necessary to do so in the public
interest.
(3) Upon the issue of any order under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule
(2), the person affected, if he is the holder of a license, shall
forthwith surrender his license to the licensing authority, if the
license has not already been surrendered. The licensing
authority shall keep the license until expiry of the period for
which the person has been disqualified or debarred, or if he has
been debarred permanently, for a period of 5 years.
10. A bare perusal of Rule 39-A of Aircraft Rules clearly envisages that
before a person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a license, an
opportunity of being heard has to be given to that person and, thereafter,
Bhalerao 8 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
licensing authority has to pass a reasoned order. The licensing authority
has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of material which is
placed before it and, thereafter, the authority has to give reasons why it
feels that license should be suspended or cancelled. Adopting such a
procedure will be in consonance with principles of natural justice In the
present case, there is complete infarction of the said rule. The licensing
authority has neither issued show-cause notice to the petitioner nor has
given him any personal hearing. The Licensing Authority has
conspicuously failed to refer to any forged documents or give any reason
as to why it has arrived at the said subjective satisfaction of suspending
the license of the petitioner. Even the period which is required to be
specified for debarring or disqualifying a person from holding or
obtaining a license has also not been specified in the said impugned
order.
11. During the course of arguments, based on the affidavit in reply, it
was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that said order has
been passed by the Director General of Civil Aviation under sub-clause
(b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of the said Rules and under said sub-clause,
DGCA is authorized to pass an order without holding any inquiry if it
feels that suspension is necessary in the public interest. He submitted
that the Respondent DGCA was, therefore, justified in not issuing any
show-cause notice or holding any inquiry or giving personal hearing to
Bhalerao 9 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
the Petitioner.
12. To test this submission, it will be advantageous to reproduce Rule
19 of the Aircraft Rule:
“19. Cancellation, suspension or endorsement of licenses,
certificates, [authorisation and approval].-
(1) Where any person is convicted of a contravention of or
failure to comply with, these rules in respect of any aircraft,
the Central Government may cancel or suspend any certificate
of registration granted under these rules relating to that
aircraft.(Emphasis supplied)
(2) The Central Government may cancel or suspend any
certificate granted under these rules relating to air worthiness
of an aircraft or a Type Certificate of an aircraft component, or
item of equipment, if the Central Government is satisfied that a
reasonable doubt exists as to the-
(a) safety of the aircraft or the type of aircraft; or
(b) airworthiness of the aircraft component or item of
equipment in respect of which a Type Certificate exists, and
may vary any condition attached to any such certificate if the
Central Government is satisfied that reasonable doubt exists as
to whether such conditions afford a sufficient margin of safety.
(3) If the Central Government is satisfied that there is
sufficient ground for doing so or, in the case of suspension
during investigation that suspension is necessary in the public
interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing-
(a) suspend any certificate, rating or license, [authorisation
and approval] or any or all of the privileges of any certificate,
rating or license, [authorisation and approval], for any
specified period;
(b) suspend any certificate, rating or license, [authorisation
and approval] during the investigation of any matter;
(c) cancel any certificate, rating or license [authorisation and
approval]; or
(d) endorse any adverse remarks on any certificate, rating or
license, [authorisation and approval].
Bhalerao 10 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
(3A) Where any person contravenes or fails to comply with the
rules relating to the operation of Microlight Aircraft, the
Central Government may cancel the certificate, rating or
license, authorisation and approval granted, issued, authorised
or approved as the case may be, under these rules.
(4) The Central Government may cancel or vary any
particulars entered by it or under its authority in any license or
certificate, [authorisation and approval] granted or in any
journey log book issued under these rules.
(5) The Central Government may require the holder of any
license, certificate, [authorisation and approval] or other
document granted or issued under these rules, or any person
having possession or custody of such license, certificate,
[authorisation and approval] or document, to surrender the
same to it for cancellation, suspension, endorsement or
variation and any person failing to comply with any such
requirement within a reasonable time shall be deemed to have
acted in contravention of these rules.”
13. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Respondent on
Rule 19, to buttress the submission that DGCA is authorized to pass an
order without holding any inquiry if it feels that suspension is necessary
in the public interest, is totally misplaced in the present context. The
opening paragraph of the said section is very clear and unambiguous
wherein it applies to the person who is convicted of a contravention or
failure to comply with the rules in respect of any aircraft and which
empowers the central government to cancel or suspend any certificate of
registration granted under these rules relating to aircraft. In the present
case, the petitioner is not a convicted person and therefore the
contention of the respondent that it had suspended the license in the
public interest does not stand to reason. Secondly the said rule pertains
Bhalerao 11 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
to certificate of airworthiness of an aircraft which is not the issue in the
present case.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention and also
laid emphasis on Clause 12.7 of Enforcement Policy and Procedures
Manual and submitted that suspension is the most severe action DGCA
can impose and even this clause contemplates issuing of show cause
notice and calling for the explanation before taking any action. For quick
reference the said clause is reproduced herein;
“12.7 Suspension Procedure - The suspension of aviation
document for contravention of a provision of the Aircraft
Act/Rules is the most severe administrative sanction the DGCA
can impose. Suspension action is taken where continued use of
the document would create a hazard to aviation safety and
judicial action is either not available or inappropriate. Where
an aviation document has been suspended, the person to
whom it was issued shall return it to the DGCA and shall not
exercise the privileges attached to that document until it is
restored by the DGCA. Suspensions for contravention are
punitive in nature and are in effect for a specified time period.
The following procedure may be followed for suspension of an
aviation document:-
(i) The concerned officer who has power of suspension,
shall determine the appropriate duration of suspension on
the basis of the recommendation of the investigator.
(ii) In order to meet the ends of natural justice, a Notice
of Suspension (show cause notice) to the alleged offender
shall be required to be issued, whether or not it is legally
binding and obligatory. The charge is required to be
mentioned in the Notice and appropriate time should be
given to submit his explanation. The standard format for
show cause notice is given in Appendix. The Notice shall
contain a clear description of the offence and sufficient
details of the contravention so the alleged offender can
identify the incident or incidents constituting the
Bhalerao 12 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
contravention. A copy of investigation report may be
enclosed along with the notice.
(iii) With Notice, competent officer shall enclose an
information sheet describing informal meeting procedure
and offering alleged offender an opportunity to discuss
sanction.(iv) The concerned competent officer shall serve
the Notice on the alleged offender personally or send it by
registered mail. The date appearing on the Notice shall be
the date on which the Notice is to be served or sent.
(iv) Where the alleged offender requests a review by the
DGCA and applies for a stay of suspension pending its
decision, the concerned officer shall not oppose the
application unless it appears that a threat to aviation
safety would result. In such a case, the concerned officer
or his designate shall present the case to the DGCA.
(v) Where the alleged offender does not ask for a review
by the DGCA within thirty days and then fails to deliver
the suspended document, after giving due consideration
for delay in the mail, charges shall be laid against the
alleged offender. Prior to laying charges, the document
holder should be contacted to confirm the situation.
(vi) Suspended period may be endorsed on the aviation
document.”
15. Although Clause 12.7 is in the nature of guideline and does not
have statutory force, the said guidelines have been prepared by the
Department in order to assists its officers and the said guidelines have
been laid down for the purpose of explaining the reason why Rules have
been framed and therefore, these guidelines are supplementary and in
addition to the Rules which have been framed and they are explanatory
in nature. Therefore, the said guidelines have to be followed by the
concerned Department. The said guidelines also lay down the procedure
to be followed for suspension. The said Clause 12.7 lays down the
Bhalerao 13 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
procedure that a show-cause notice has to be issued before the inquiry
is to be held and the charge is required to be mentioned in the Notice
and appropriate time is required to be given to submit his explanation.
Further the requirement of the notice is that it shall contain a clear
description of the offence and sufficient details of the contravention so
that the alleged offender can identify the incident or incidents
constituting the contravention. It also contemplates that a copy of
investigation report may be enclosed along with the notice. The
Respondent has completely failed to adhere to the guidelines which are
mentioned in Clause 12.7 before passing the impugned order.
16. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh P Lokhande vs. Union
of India and Anr [2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 257] which squarely applies to the
facts of the present case and there is no reason to take a different view.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent did not point out any other
authority contrary to the one which the Petitioner sought to rely.
17. The Petitioner has also relied upon the judgments in the cases of
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [1978 SCR (2) 621], A. K. Kraipak
vs. Union of India [AIR 1970 Supreme Court 150], Dharampal Satyapal
Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors [(2015)
8 SCC 519], State of U. P. vs. Sudhir kumar Singh [AIR 2020 Supreme
Bhalerao 14 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
Court 5215] to contend that the principles of natural justice have to be
followed. There can be no doubt about the said proposition of law.
What is also laid down in the judgments, which have been referred
above, is that it may not be necessary to strike down the action and
refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after
complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-
grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice to the person against
whom the action is taken and that every violation of a facet of natural
justice may not lead to the conclusion that the order passed is null and
void and that the validity of the order has to be decided on the test of
prejudice. We find that in the present case, the petitioner was not
afforded an opportunity to explain his version before taking the drastic
step of suspension of license. We feel that definitely prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner as he could not point out his side of the story
and therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the order and remit the matter
back to the respondent to give an opportunity to the petitioner, which
will be in consonance with principles of natural justice.
18. It will also be pertinent to mention here that Respondent has not
produced the so-called forged mark-sheet, which was allegedly submitted
by the Petitioner. Further it is also an admitted position that though the
criminal complaint was filed against the Petitioner and others in the year
2011, so far although charge-sheet has been filed, no charge has been
Bhalerao 15 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
framed even after 15 years. Apart from that, the Petitioner has
categorically come out with the case that whilst the entire application
form is typed, the entry at column 9(e) showing that he passed the ATPL
composite in the session in April 2010 with roll number 19250025 and
result declared on 03/06/2010, is not in his handwriting and that he
does not know whose handwriting it is. In the light of the said contention
of the Petitioner, it was incumbent on the Respondents to have produced
the said original documents and/or obtained the handwriting expert’s
report. The burden was on the Respondent to establish by producing the
material before this Court that the said two pages were in the Petitioner’s
handwriting, which the Respondent has failed to do.
19. It will also be pertinent to mention that the petitioner had also filed a
petition challenging his termination of service before this Court and this
Court vide order dated 25th February 2019, had set aside the order of
termination. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed.
20. From the above conspectus and taking into consideration the clear
infarction of Rule 39A and Rule 19 of the Aircraft Rules, non-adherence to
Clause 12.7 of Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, we find that the
impugned order is clearly illegal and unsustainable as the same has been
Bhalerao 16 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::

WP-3360-2011.doc
passed in the teeth of the above provisions of law. The impugned order
dated 12/3/2011, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
21. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.3.2011 passed
by the Respondent DGCA is quashed and set aside and the ALTP license
which was issued to the petitioner is restored.
22. The Respondent is at liberty to initiate inquiry by following the
procedure laid down under Rule 39A of the said Rules and give an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned
order. The said inquiry is to be completed expeditiously within a period of
two months. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
23. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Bhalerao 17 17
of
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 18:13:29 :::