Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 18.02.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 23.05.2026
+ LPA 76/2026, CM APPL. 11108/2026, CM APPL. 11109/2026,
CM APPL. 11110/2026 & CM APPL. 11111/2026
NIVEDITA SHARMA AND ANR. .....Appellants
versus
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION & ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellants : Mr. Parth Kaushik, Advocate with
Ms. Nivedita Sharma, Advocate /
Appellant-in-person.
For the Respondents : Ms. Anjana Gosain & Mr. Adhiraj Singh,
Advocates for R-1&2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. The present intra court Appeal has been filed by the Appellants
assailing the orders dated 08.04.2025, 08.07.2025 and 22.12.2025
(“ Impugned Orders ”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.
4844/2021 (“ Writ Petition ”).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 1 of 15
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Appellants travelled from New Delhi to San Francisco on
11.11.2020 on Air India Flight AI-173 in Business Class and returned on
14.01.2021 by Air India Flight AI-174. The Appellants allege that, on the
outbound flight of approximately sixteen hours, Respondent No. 3, without
any prior intimation, served only one hot meal and limited pre-packed
snacks, notwithstanding the Appellants’ prior disclosure of diabetes and
hypertension and their consequent requirement for timely meals and
medication. It is further alleged that the quality and quantity of food served
were grossly inadequate for a long-haul international flight, and that no
advance notice of the reduced meal service was furnished to the Appellants.
3. As per the Appellants’ case, after consuming the meal served by
Respondent No. 3, Appellant No. 1 suffered food poisoning, dehydration,
and weakness; however, adequate medical assistance was not provided to
Appellant No. 1 by Respondent No. 3.
4. It is further alleged that Appellant No. 1 suffered repeated
hypoglycaemic episodes during the course of the journey and was compelled
to consume sugar and sweetened beverages. The Appellants also allege that
the cabin crew failed to recognise or manage the hypoglycaemic episodes,
thereby evincing a lack of adequate training.
5. Thereafter, the Appellants instituted the Writ Petition before this
Court, inter alia , seeking directions to the Respondents to constitute an
independent committee to review the quality and quantity of food served to
passengers on the flight.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 2 of 15
6. The learned Single Judge after recording a prima facie view that the
Appellants had suffered serious inconvenience and directed Respondent No.
3/Air India and Respondent No. 2/DGCA to file their responses and treated
the matter as involving broader systemic regulatory concerns.
7. In the Counter-Affidavit dated 26.08.2021 filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 3/Air India, the maintainability of the Writ Petition was
challenged on the ground that the Appellants had an equally efficacious
alternative remedy of filing of a complaint on the ‘AirSewa’ portal being a
grievance redressal mechanism for airline passengers.
8. In the Counter-Affidavit dated 24.01.2022 filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 2/DGCA, it was contended that DGCA had, vide order
dated 26.05.2020, issued certain Guidelines/Standard Operating Protocols
(SOPs) to be followed by airlines and passengers in the context of the then
prevailing circumstances arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was
further pointed out that multiple online grievance redressal portals, including
CPGRAMS, PMO (PG), and Air Sewa, were available, and that the
Appellants could also lodge their complaint through email.
9. Vide Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025, the learned Single Judge
disposed of the Writ Petition, taking note of the necessity of providing
appropriate redressal of the grievances raised by the Appellants, and directed
Respondent No. 1/Ministry of Civil Aviation to treat the Writ Petition itself
as a complaint/grievance to be duly considered and dealt with in accordance
with law, under written intimation to the Appellants.
10. The Appellants filed CM APPL. 39493/2025 seeking recall of
Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025 on the ground that the directions
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 3 of 15
contained therein had not been complied with. During the hearing of the said
application held on 08.07.2025, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 2/DGCA submitted that, pursuant to the Impugned Order dated
08.04.2025, Respondent No. 3/Air India had been called upon to furnish its
reply, which had been duly received. It was further submitted that
Respondent No. 2/DGCA was in the process of examining the
complaint/grievance raised by the Appellants and that the said exercise
would be completed within a period of six weeks. Accordingly, the said
application was disposed of by recording the statement made on behalf of
Respondent No. 2/DGCA and observing that no case for recall of the
Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025 was made out.
11. The Appellants has contended that pursuant to the Impugned Order
dated 08.04.2025, Appellant No. 1 received a call on 30.07.2025 from Mr.
Vijay Kumar Sahu, Deputy Director, DGCA, consequent whereupon a
meeting was held through video conferencing on 01.08.2025. During the
said meeting, Appellant No. 1 objected to Respondent No. 2/DGCA
undertaking the grievance redressal exercise, on the ground that this Court
had directed Respondent No. 1/Ministry of Civil Aviation to consider the
matter and that DGCA itself was arrayed as a respondent in the Writ
Petition. Although DGCA is stated to have asserted that it was acting under
the authority of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, no communication to that
effect was furnished to Appellant No. 1. Without prejudice to the aforesaid
objection, Appellant No. 1 participated in the meeting, during the course of
which, DGCA, for the first time, disclosed a letter dated 13.05.2025 issued
by Respondent No. 3/Air India. Appellant No. 1 objected to the said letter
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 4 of 15
being taken into consideration at that stage, contending that the grievance
redressal exercise ought to remain confined to the pleadings and affidavits
already forming part of the record in the Writ Petition. The Appellants have
further contended that during the said hearing before Respondent No. 2 /
DGCA, the representatives of Respondent No. 3/Air India largely remained
silent and the hearing concluded with an assurance that a further meeting
would be convened and that the minutes would be shared. However, neither
of the said assurances was acted upon. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 /
DGCA sought the Appellants’ response vide email dated 01.09.2025, to
which the Appellants responded on 09.09.2025. Despite the same,
Respondent No. 2/DGCA did not pass any order.
12. Subsequently, the Appellants filed CM APPL. 75773/2025 seeking
recall of the Impugned Order dated 08.07.2025. Vide the Impugned Order
dated 22.12.2025, the said application was dismissed while observing that if
the Appellants were aggrieved by any alleged non-compliance with the
directions contained in the Impugned Order dated 08.07.2025, or if the
Appellants sought to assail the outcome of the exercise undertaken pursuant
thereto, the Appellants would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in
accordance with law, which had already been expressly reserved in the
Impugned Order dated 08.07.2025. It was further directed that should the
exercise contemplated by the Impugned Order dated 08.07.2025 not be
concluded, Respondent No. 2 shall take steps to expeditiously conclude the
same under intimation to the Appellants.
13. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Orders passed in the Writ Petition,
the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 5 of 15
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
14. The learned Counsel for the Appellants advanced the following
submissions:
14.1. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in declining
to adjudicate the Writ Petition on merits. Vide order dated
12.09.2022, the learned Single Judge expressly directed
Respondent No. 3 to comply with the earlier order dated
26.04.2022 and, therefore, having exercised jurisdiction in the
matter, the learned Single Judge ought to have proceeded to
decide the issues arising in the Writ Petition on merits.
14.2. It was further submitted that relegating the matter to Respondent
No. 1, and thereafter to the grievance redressal mechanism of
Respondent No. 2, despite serious allegations having been
levelled against Respondent No. 2 itself, is contrary to the
principles of natural justice.
14.3. It was contended that, notwithstanding the explicit directions
contained in the Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025 relegating the
matter to Respondent No. 1, the grievance redressal exercise was
in fact undertaken by Respondent No. 2, which was itself a party
against whom serious allegations had been raised.
14.4. It was submitted that the Impugned Orders have occasioned
grave miscarriage of justice inasmuch as, despite the lapse of
considerable time, no order came to be passed by Respondent
No. 2 pursuant to the directions issued thereunder.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 6 of 15
14.5. It was further submitted that, despite the specific directions
issued vide the Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025, the
Respondents failed to pass any speaking or reasoned order,
notwithstanding repeated opportunities having been afforded for
the same.
14.6. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to
consider the grounds urged by the Appellants in the recall
applications, being CM APPLs. 39493/2025 and 75773/2025 and
dismissed the same on technical grounds without examining the
substantive contentions raised therein.
14.7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present
Appeal be allowed and the Impugned Orders be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
15. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
submitted that multiple grievance redressal portals are available for lodging
complaints of the nature raised by the Appellants. It was further submitted
that, since no grievance against Respondent No. 3 had been raised by the
Appellants before Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no occasion had arisen for the
said Respondents to conduct any inquiry into the matter or to take steps
towards its resolution. It was, therefore, contended that the learned Single
Judge committed no error in directing Respondent No. 1 to treat the Writ
Petition as a complaint/grievance and to take such action thereon as may be
warranted in accordance with law.
16. In view of the foregoing submission, it is prayed that the present
Appeal be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 7 of 15
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material
placed on record.
18. By way of the present Appeal, the Appellants assail the Impugned
Orders whereby the Writ Petition came to be disposed of with a direction to
Respondent No. 1/Ministry of Civil Aviation and Respondent No. 2/DGCA
to consider and decide the grievance raised by the Appellants in the Writ
Petition by treating the same as a complaint/grievance and by taking such
action thereon as may be warranted in accordance with law, under written
intimation to the Appellants.
19. The operative portion of Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025 is
reproduced as under:
“ 9. It is also averred in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent no.2 (DGCA) that there are a number of grievance
redressal portals where grievances of the kind raised by the
petitioner in the present petition can be agitated. In this regard,
reference may be made to the averments made in paragraph 3 (xiv.)
of the counter-affidavit which reads as under:-
“xiv. That the contents of para 3(xiv) are wrong and
vehemently denied. It is denied that the Answering
Respondent does not a proper mechanism in place for
grievance redressal. It is submitted that there are a number of
Grievance redressal portals which are online portals such as
CPGRAMS, PMO (PG), Air Sewa and even the grievances
are being received also through emails. Since the Petitioner
did not raise any grievance against the Respondent No.3 to
the answering Respondent, there was no opportunity for the
answering respondent to conduct its own investigation and
inquiry. The Ministry of Civil Aviation including the
Answering Respondent receive a number of complaints
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 8 of 15
through all these portals and are being handled for redressal
as per existing procedure and law.”
10. In view of the aforesaid, while taking note of the necessity to
provide a proper redressal to the grievances raised by the
petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent no.1 (Ministry of Civil Aviation) to consider the present
petition itself as a complaint/grievance which may be duly
considered and appropriate action thereon (as may be deemed
warranted in accordance with law) under written intimation to the
petitioner.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.
12. Needless to say, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the
outcome of the aforesaid exercise, they shall be at liberty to avail
appropriate remedies, as may be available under law. ”
20. As the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not redress the grievance of the
Appellants, the Appellants filed an application being CM APPL.
39493/2025 seeking recalling of the Impugned Orders dated 08.04.2025,
which was decided vide Impugned Order dated 08.07.2025 as under:
“3 . Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 / Directorate General
of Civil Aviation (DGCA) submits that in fact, pursuant to the said
order passed by this Court, replies were called from respondent no.
3 / Air India Limited which have been duly received. It is submitted
that the DGCA is in the process for examination of the case
concerning the complaint / grievance of the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the copy of the said reply shall also be furnished to
the petitioners, who shall be at liberty to file a written response of
their own. It is assured and undertaken that the aforesaid exercise
shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today.
4. In the above circumstances, there is no occasion for recalling the
said order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court. The present
application is accordingly disposed of, taking on record the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 9 of 15
aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 /
DGCA. ”
21. Further, the Appellants filed CM APPL. 75773/2025 for recall of
Impugned Order dated 08.07.2025, which was dismissed vide Impugned
Order dated 22.12.2025 as under:
“ 3. No ground is made out to recall the order dated 08.07.2025.
4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any alleged non-compliance with
the directions contained in the order dated 08.07.2025, or if the
petitioner seeks to assail the outcome of the exercise undertaken
pursuant thereto, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate
remedies in accordance with law. This liberty has already been
expressly reserved in the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by this
Court. In case the exercise as directed vide order dated 08.07.2025,
remains inconcluded, let DGCA take steps to expeditiously conclude
the same, under intimation to the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, no merit is found in the present application;
the same is dismissed accordingly. ”
22. At the outset, while we take note of the grievance urged by the
Appellants and the necessity for its expeditious resolution, a perusal of the
aforesaid Impugned Orders makes it clear that for the purpose of redressing
the said grievance, Respondent No. 1 and/or Respondent No. 2 were
directed to consider all issues raised in the Writ Petition by treating the same
as a complaint and to take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance
with law under intimation to the Appellants. It was further observed that, in
the event the Appellants were aggrieved by the outcome of the decision
taken by Respondent No. 1 and/or Respondent No. 2, they would be at
liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available to them in law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 10 of 15
23. It appears that, pursuant to the Impugned Orders, a response was
called for from Respondent No. 3/Air India, a hearing was held, and a
written response was also submitted by the Appellants, however, despite that
no effective redressal of the Appellants’ grievance has yet been undertaken
by Respondent Nos. 1 or 2 and, in the aforesaid circumstances, the present
Appeal has come to be preferred.
24. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal
is whether the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the Appellants to
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for consideration as a complaint/grievance, instead
of itself adjudicating the same on merits.
25. It is settled law that, although the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ousted by the availability of an
alternative remedy, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly. It is
equally well-settled that, as a general rule, parties may be relegated to avail
of the alternative remedy available to them in the appropriate cases.
26. It is the Appellants’ contention that the learned Single Judge erred in
relegating the matter to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as Writ Petition was
entertained by issuing notice and directing the learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 3 to seek instructions vide order dated 26.04.2022.
According to the Appellants, once the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been invoked and exercised in
the matter, the learned Single Judge was duty-bound to adjudicate the Writ
Petition on merits.
27. The above submissions of the Appellants cannot be accepted as by
merely issuing notice or directing the respondents to seek instructions, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 11 of 15
cannot be said that the Court had exercised the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India. In State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij
Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti , (2008) 12 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy even after it has been admitted and interim order has
been passed. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as
under:
“ 38. …..It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that
even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ
petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be
laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it
could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If
such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order
dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained
by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of
availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the
aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition
albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner.”
28. In view of the above settled position of law, the Appellants’
contention that, because this Court had entertained the Writ Petition and
issued directions to the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 to take
instructions, the learned Single Judge was bound to adjudicate the Writ
Petition on merits, is not tenable as a writ jurisdiction may not be exercised
on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, notwithstanding that
the petition had earlier been entertained and interim directions had been
passed therein.
29. In U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.
Karamchari Sangh , (2004) 4 SCC 268, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 12 of 15
held that the delay in deciding the writ petition by itself is not a sufficient
ground to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the said
decision is extracted as under:
“ 17. The only reason given by the High Court to finally dispose of
the issues in its writ jurisdiction which appears to be sustainable, is
the factor of delay, on the part of the High Court in disposing of the
dispute. Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised
and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not
prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the
nature of a demurrer. Nevertheless even when there has been such a
delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual
controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a
delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts.
Indeed the factual controversies which have arisen in this case
remain unresolved. They must be resolved in a manner which is just
and fair to both the parties….. ”
30. In the present case, the Writ Petition remained pending since 2021
and came to be decided only vide the Impugned Order dated 08.04.2025.
However, the pendency of the Writ Petition during that period does not
preclude this Court from relegating the Appellants for availing alternative
remedy, which is equally efficacious in nature. Moreover, the controversy
raised in the Writ Petition entails disputed questions of fact, which this
Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction will not be able to effectively
adjudicated. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the regulators are
better equipped to decide the grievance of the Appellant at first instance.
Further, the liberty has been granted to the Appellant to take appropriate
remedy which includes approaching this Court by way of filing fresh writ
petition if the Appellants remain aggrieved by the decision taken by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 13 of 15
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to the Impugned Orders passed in the
Writ Petition.
31. In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the decision of the
learned Single Judge to relegate the matter to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for
redressal of the complaint/grievance raised by the Appellants in the Writ
Petition.
32. Further, the apprehension expressed by the Appellants regarding an
alleged violation of the principles of natural justice is, at this stage,
premature. The rights and interests of the Appellants stand adequately
safeguarded by the liberty reserved in their favour to avail of appropriate
legal remedies, in the event Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fail to adhere to the
principles of natural justice. At this juncture, there is no basis to presume
that the grievance redressal mechanism under Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
would be ineffective or inefficacious, particularly having regard to the fact
that the said Respondents are the regulatory authorities governing the
aviation sector.
33. Accordingly, no case has been made out by the Appellants, beyond a
mere apprehension, to establish that the grievance redressal process before
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in view of the allegations of regulatory failure,
violates the principles of natural justice or does not guarantee fair procedure
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
34. As regards the Appellants’ contention concerning the manner in
which the recall applications came to be dismissed, we are of the view that
no interference is warranted, inasmuch as the Impugned Orders, read
cumulatively, adequately safeguard the rights and interests of the Appellants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 14 of 15
35. Accordingly, no case has been made out by the Appellants warranting
interference with the Impugned Orders. While upholding the Impugned
Orders, we direct that the grievance redressal exercise directed thereunder, if
not already concluded, shall be completed expeditiously after taking into
consideration the written replies submitted by the Appellants as well as
Respondent No. 3/Air India, and a reasoned order shall be passed within a
period of six weeks. We reiterate the liberty granted by the learned Single
Judge that, in the event the Appellants remain aggrieved by the order to be
passed by Respondent No. 1/Ministry of Civil Aviation and/or Respondent
No. 2/DGCA, they shall be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be
available to them in accordance with law.
36. Accordingly, present Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
37. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 23, 2026
‘St’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
14:16:28
LPA 76/2026 Page 15 of 15