Global Avianautics Limited vs Directorate General Of Civil Aviation

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 25.08.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010880662025
+ LPA 680/2025 & CM APPL. 69961/2025
GLOBAL AVIANAUTICS LIMITED .....Appellant
versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
& ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Prateek Rathee, Mr. Bajaj
and Ms. Rishika, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Anjana Gosain, Senior Panel
Counsel, Mr. Govil Upadhyaya,
Government Pleader and Ms. Akansha
Choudhary, Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Assistant
Director, DGCA.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
LPA 680/2025 Page 1 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
CM APPL Nos. 69964/2025, 69965/2025 & 69966/2025 ( Exemptions )
1. Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 69962/2025 ( Condonation of delay in filing the Appeal )
3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“ Limitation Act ”) seeking condonation of delay
in filing the present Appeal.
4. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of learned Senior
Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the Respondents and
considering the averments raised in the Application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 468 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 7208/2026 ( Condonation of delay in filing the Reply )
6. This is an Application filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the
Reply to the present Appeal.
7. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of learned Counsel
for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant,
and considering the averments raised in the Application, the same is allowed.
The delay of 48 days in filing the Reply to the present Appeal is hereby
condoned.
8. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 680/2025 Page 2 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

CM APPL. 69963/2025, CM APPL. 28411/2026 & CM APPL. 36014/2026
( Additional Documents )
9. These Applications have been preferred on behalf of the Appellant
seeking leave to place on record certain additional documents, namely
Annexures A-38 to A-53 appended to CM APPL. 69963/2025, Annexures A-
1 to A-4 appended to CM APPL. 28411/2026, and Annexures A-1 to A-4
appended to CM APPL. 36014/2026.
10. Having heard learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellant and upon perusal of the averments made in
the Applications, the Applications are allowed. The additional documents,
namely Annexures A-38 to A-53 appended to CM APPL. 69963/2025,
Annexures A-1 to A-4 appended to CM APPL. 28411/2026, and Annexures
A-1 to A-4 appended to CM APPL. 36014/2026, are taken on record.
11. Accordingly, the Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 680/2025
INTRODUCTION
12. The present intra court Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated
26.07.2024 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed in W.P.(C) 3432/2024 titled as
‘ Himanshu and Ors. v. Directorate General of Civil Aviation & Anr. ’ (“ Writ
Petition ”) filed by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
13. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition observing that no
ground was found to intervene with the communication dated 26.02.2024
bearing No. AV-22011/14/2016 (Part) (“ Communication ”), issued by the
Directorate of Flying Training (“ DFT ”) on behalf of Respondent No. 1 /
Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“ DGCA ”), by which the Pipistrel
LPA 680/2025 Page 3 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

VIRUS SW 121 aircraft (“ Pipistrel ”), forming part of the fleet of the
Government Aviation Training Institute (“ GATI ”), was classified as a Light
Sport Aircraft (“ LSA ”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
14. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Appeal is set out
hereunder:
14.1. On 21.07.2007, the Appellant was declared successful in the bid
floated by the Government of Orissa for the development of GATI
into an aviation academy. Pursuant thereto, a Lease-Develop-
Operate Agreement dated 03.11.2008 (“ LDO Agreement ”) was
executed among the Appellant, the Government of Orissa, M/s
Ahmedabad Aviation and Aeronautics Limited for the
development, operation and management of GATI.
14.2. On 18.04.2016, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(“ EASA ”) granted Type Certification to the Pipistrel, as reflected
in EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet No. EASA.A.573 Issue 03
dated 12.03.2018 (“ TCDS ”). The certification basis employed
was the Certification Specifications for LSA (“ CS-LSA ”).
14.3. By communication dated 09.10.2018, the Aircraft Engineering
Directorate of the DGCA sought the views of the Directorate of
Airworthiness on the type acceptance of the Pipistrel, noting that
EASA had described the aircraft as holding a “ normal Certificate
of Airworthiness in Europe ”.
14.4. By letter bearing No. 7-43/2018-AED dated 29.11.2019
(“ Acceptance Letter ”), the DGCA accepted the Type
LPA 680/2025 Page 4 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

Certification granted by EASA in respect of the Pipistrel, in
accordance with the Civil Aviation Requirements (“ CAR ”),
Section 6, Series A, Part II.
14.5. GATI, vide e-mail dated 13.07.2020, sought clarification from the
DGCA as to whether the Pipistrel had been type certified in the
LSA category. The DGCA, by e-mail dated 16.07.2020
(“ Clarification E-mail ”), responded that it had type accepted the
Pipistrel in accordance with CAR, Section 6, Series A, Part II, and
that, as per the TCDS, the aircraft was type certificated under the
“ Normal ” Airworthiness category, with CS-LSA being the
certification basis adopted.
14.6. The DGCA granted in-principle approval for import of two
Pipistrel aircraft on 23.03.2021, followed by issuance of a No-
Objection Certificate dated 12.04.2021. Between 01.06.2021 and
09.07.2021, GATI imported the two Pipistrel aircraft from
Slovenia, which were thereafter registered with the DGCA under
Registration Marks VT-DPA and VT-DPB, respectively.
14.7. On 07.07.2021 and 14.09.2021, the DGCA and EASA entered a
Working Arrangement (“ Working Arrangement ”). Clause
3.2(a) thereof provides that an EASA Type Certificate or
Restricted Type Certificate is to be accepted by the DGCA
through issuance of a Letter of Type Acceptance under CAR,
Section 6, Series A, Part II. Clause 5.3 of the Working
Arrangement further provides that the DGCA would determine
compliance with the EASA type-certification basis and
LPA 680/2025 Page 5 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

environmental protection requirements with reference to EASA’s
acceptable means of compliance and guidance material.
14.8. The DGCA approved the maintenance plan for the two Pipistrel
aircraft on 06.06.2022. Thereafter, on 17.08.2022, GATI
submitted Issue 1 Revision 7 of its Training and Procedures Manual
(“ TPM ”) to the DGCA for inclusion of the first Pipistrel aircraft.
14.9. On 18.08.2022, the DGCA issued a Certificate of Airworthiness
(“ CoA ”) in respect of VT-DPA, recording its Category as
“ Normal ” and its Sub-Division as “ Passengers ”.
14.10. The DGCA approved Issue 1 Revision 7 of the TPM on
05.09.2022. On 22.09.2022, the DFT published the list of DGCA-
approved Flying Training Organisations (“ FTO ”) as on
31.08.2022 (“ 2022 FTO List ”), wherein GATI was shown at
Serial No. 13 without Pipistrel aircraft being reflected in its fleet.
14.11. On 28.10.2022, the DGCA issued a CoA in respect of VT-DPB,
similarly recording its Category as “ Normal ” and its Sub-Division
as “ Passengers ”.
14.12. GATI submitted Issue 1 Revision 8 of the TPM on 31.10.2022,
seeking inclusion of the second Pipistrel aircraft, which was
approved by the DGCA on 16.11.2022.
14.13. On 20.12.2022, the DGCA issued Certificate of Approval No.
10/2016, recognising GATI as an FTO valid until 27.12.2027,
with the scope of approval covering “ Aeroplanes – Upto PPL,
CPL, IR, AFIR, FIR and Extension of Aircraft Ratings – Single
Engine and Multi Engine ”.
LPA 680/2025 Page 6 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

14.14. On 10.05.2023, the DGCA forwarded to GATI its report
containing the observations recorded during the Annual
Surveillance conducted between 08.05.2023 and 10.05.2023
under CAR, Section 7, Series D, Part I.
14.15. On 26.05.2023, the DFT published the list of FTOs as on
08.05.2023 (“ 2023 FTO List ”), wherein the two Pipistrel aircraft
were shown against GATI’s fleet as belonging to the LSA
category.
14.16. By letter dated 04.07.2023, GATI called upon the DGCA to
correct the 2023 FTO List, contending that the Pipistrel had earlier
been certified as an aircraft falling within the “ Normal ” category
and had erroneously been reflected therein as an LSA. Between
07.07.2023 and 15.02.2024, GATI addressed further
communications to various Directorates of the DGCA and to the
Ministry of Civil Aviation (“ MCA ”) in this regard.
14.17. By communication dated 02.08.2023, EASA informed the DGCA
that the Pipistrel was categorised as an aircraft falling within the
“ Normal ” category and not as an LSA, and that the adoption of
CS-LSA as the certification basis ought not to give rise to any
confusion in that regard. EASA accordingly requested the DGCA
to correct the categorisation reflected on its website so as to ensure
consistency with the International Civil Aviation Organisation /
Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944 (“ Chicago
Convention ”).
LPA 680/2025 Page 7 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

14.18. By communications dated 10.08.2023 and 09.10.2023, GATI
reiterated its stand that the Pipistrel was an aircraft falling within
the “ Normal ” category and stated that EASA had accepted the
Pipistrel for training towards the grant of a Commercial Pilot’s
Licence (“ CPL ”).
14.19. By communication dated 14.08.2023, GATI drew the DGCA’s
attention to the pendency of the licence applications submitted by
more than five of its student Pilots.
14.20. By communications dated 20.09.2023 and 21.09.2023, GATI
recorded that a meeting scheduled with EASA had been postponed
without intimation to it, and further asserted that the
reclassification of the Pipistrel from the “ Normal ” category to
LSA had been effected unilaterally and contrary to the protocol
agreed between the DGCA and EASA.
14.21. By communication dated 11.10.2023 addressed to the DFT and to
the officer who had signed the CoA, GATI set out the provisions
of Indian law on the basis of which, according to it, the Pipistrel
could not have been classified as an LSA.
14.22. Vide communication dated 14.11.2023, GATI objected to a
comparison drawn by the DFT with aircraft forming part of the
fleet of another FTO, contending that those aircraft belonged to
the LSA category and held a Special Certificate of Airworthiness
(“ SCoA ”), whereas the Pipistrel belonged to the “ Normal ”
category and held a CoA.
LPA 680/2025 Page 8 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

14.23. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, being student Pilots who had undergone
training at GATI, submitted applications dated 29.11.2023 and
03.12.2023 (“ Applications ”) for grant of a CPL through the
DGCA’s e-GCA portal. Queries were raised by the DGCA
between 11.12.2023 and 16.01.2024, to which responses were
submitted between 13.12.2023 and 17.01.2024.
14.24. A meeting was held between officials of the DGCA and
representatives of GATI on 27.12.2023. Pursuant thereto, GATI
forwarded further documents on 29.12.2023, on which date the
DGCA also endorsed the Pipistrel on the CPL of one GATI Pilot.
14.25. An Expert Committee recorded its opinion on the issues raised by
GATI on 10.01.2024. GATI thereafter filed applications under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (“ RTI Act ”), on 07.02.2024 and
12.02.2024, and issued a legal notice dated 09.02.2024 to the
DGCA.
14.26. By the Communication, the DGCA classified the Pipistrel forming
part of GATI’s fleet as an LSA. The DGCA thereafter declined to
issue CPLs to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 vide orders dated
27.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 (“ Rejection Orders ”).
14.27. Aggrieved by the Communication and the Rejection Orders, the
Appellant, GATI and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 instituted the Writ
Petition on 02.03.2024. On 06.03.2024, learned Single Judge
issued notice in the Writ Petition and recorded the statement of the
petitioners therein that the Communication reclassifying the
Pipistrel as an LSA would deprive students trained on the aircraft
LPA 680/2025 Page 9 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

of a CPL and that the same had been issued without following the
procedure prescribed under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (“ Rules ”).
14.28. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioners therein
filed LPA 254/2024 assailing the order dated 06.03.2024 passed
by learned Single Judge. The said appeal was dismissed vide order
dated 01.04.2024, observing that the appellants’ contention that
the DGCA had changed the classification of the Pipistrel from
“ Normal ” to LSA vide the Communication was misconceived,
since the Communication merely responded to objections against
the 2023 FTO List. It was further observed that the order dated
06.03.2024 was interim in nature, caused no prejudice, left all
rights and contentions open, and that learned Single Judge was
expected to endeavour to decide the Writ Petition itself on the next
date of hearing.
14.29. By the Impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition was disposed of
upon observing that the LSA classification had been publicised
since September 2022 and had consistently been within GATI’s
knowledge, including from the DGCA’s Clarification E-mail, and
that, independently, flying experience acquired on an LSA was not
reckonable towards the grant of a CPL. It was further held that the
classification constituted a valid exercise of the DGCA’s statutory
power under Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934, now Bharatiya
Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 (“ Act ”), to classify and periodically
reassess aircraft, and that, since CPL eligibility involved
considerations of public safety best left to an expert body, judicial
LPA 680/2025 Page 10 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

restraint was warranted in the absence of a clear demonstration of
arbitrariness.
14.30. By e-mail dated 06.09.2024, GATI sought a meeting with the
Secretary, MCA, regarding the classification of the Pipistrel and
the operational difficulties arising therefrom. By e-mail dated
07.10.2024, GATI addressed the Deputy Secretary, MCA,
forwarding its earlier correspondence on the subject.
14.31. GATI submitted a detailed representation dated 16.12.2024 to the
MCA, setting out what it described as contradictions in the process
by which the Pipistrel had come to be classified as an LSA.
14.32. By order dated 24.12.2024, the MCA, upon considering a
representation submitted by the student Pilots of GATI seeking
reconsideration of the classification and recognition of their
accumulated flying hours towards the grant of CPLs, directed the
DGCA to constitute a Committee to examine the issue and submit
its report within twenty days.
14.33. By e-mail dated 02.01.2025, GATI reiterated before the DGCA its
objections to the basis on which the Pipistrel had been classified
as an LSA, placing reliance upon the Working Arrangement.
14.34. The Committee constituted by the DGCA pursuant to the MCA’s
order dated 24.12.2024 submitted its report on 31.01.2025. GATI
thereafter continued to correspond with the DGCA and the MCA
on the issue until 20.03.2025.
14.35. GATI filed applications dated 22.05.2025 and 23.05.2025 under
the RTI Act, seeking the basis on which the Pipistrel had been
LPA 680/2025 Page 11 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

classified as an LSA. In response to the application dated
22.05.2025, the DFT furnished its reply dated 20.06.2025 and
permitted inspection of the relevant files on 30.06.2025.
14.36. By e-mail dated 27.05.2025, GATI addressed certain queries to
EASA regarding the classification of the Pipistrel, to which EASA
responded on the same day. GATI thereafter continued to pursue
administrative remedies, including a meeting with the DGCA,
until August 2025, without resolution.
14.37. By notice dated 03.10.2025, the Government of Odisha terminated
the LDO Agreement, citing the grounding of GATI’s Pipistrel
consequent upon the actions of the DGCA. The said termination
is the subject matter of separate proceedings instituted by the
Appellant.
14.38. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant has
preferred the present Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
15. Mr. Amit Rawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant made the following submissions:
15.1. The Impugned Judgment proceeds on an erroneous appreciation
of both the facts and the applicable statutory and regulatory
framework. Learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption
that the Pipistrel had consistently been classified as LSA and that
the Appellant had been aware of such classification from
September, 2022. Both of the said assumptions are contrary to the
record.
LPA 680/2025 Page 12 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

15.2. The Pipistrel received Type Certification from EASA under the
“ Normal ” airworthiness category. Although CS-LSA was adopted
as the certification basis, the said certification specification was
distinct from the airworthiness category assigned to the aircraft.
The certification basis adopted for an aircraft cannot be equated
with its airworthiness classification.
15.3. In the DGCA’s Clarification E-mail, the DGCA had itself stated
that the aircraft was “ type certificated under the ‘Normal’
Airworthiness category ” and that the certification basis used was
“ CS-LSA ”. The Clarification E-mail, therefore, did not classify the
Pipistrel as an LSA; rather, it expressly recorded its classification
under the “ Normal ” category.
15.4. CS-LSA was a certification specification developed by EASA and
that its use was not confined to aircraft falling within the LSA
airworthiness category. Learned Single Judge erred in treating the
words “ CS-LSA ” as determinative of the airworthiness
classification of the aircraft, without appreciating the distinction
between a certification standard and the category in which the
aircraft is certified.
15.5. The DGCA had accepted the Type Certification granted by EASA
by its Acceptance Letter under CAR Section 6, Series A, Part II.
Thereafter, upon granting in-principle approval and a No-
Objection Certificate for the import of the aircraft, the DGCA
registered the two Pipistrel aircraft under Registration Marks VT-
LPA 680/2025 Page 13 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

DPA and VT-DPB. The DGCA subsequently issued CoAs in
respect of the Pipistrel. The CoA dated 18.08.2022 issued for VT-
DPA and the CoA dated 28.10.2022 issued for VT-DPB recorded
the category of each aircraft as “ Normal ” and the sub-division as
“ Passengers ”. The said CoAs had neither been cancelled nor
revoked and continued to remain valid.
15.6. The ‘Normal’ and ‘LSA’ airworthiness categories were mutually
exclusive. An aircraft holding a Type Certificate under Rule 49E
of the Rules was issued a CoA, whereas an aircraft falling within
the LSA category held a Restricted Type Certificate under Rule
49I of the Rules and was issued an SCoA in accordance with CAR
Section 2, Series F, Part XXIII. Since the Pipistrel aircraft held
Type Certificates and had been issued CoAs, they could not
simultaneously have been treated as aircraft falling within the LSA
category.
15.7. The DGCA could not have reclassified the Pipistrel as an LSA
without first cancelling or revoking the existing CoAs and
following the procedure prescribed by law for the issuance of
SCoAs. The position adopted by the DGCA resulted in an
situation in which the aircraft continued to hold Type Certificates
and valid CoAs under the “ Normal ” category, while being denied
the legal consequences ordinarily flowing from those certificates.
15.8. Reliance was placed upon Paragraph No. 3.4(2)(c) of CAR
Section 2, Series F, Part XXIII, which excludes from the LSA
category an aircraft possessing a CoA issued by a foreign civil
LPA 680/2025 Page 14 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

aviation authority. The Pipistrel possessed certification issued by
EASA and, in any event, had subsequently been issued CoAs by
the DGCA itself.
15.9. Learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Appellant was
aware of the LSA classification from September, 2022. The
Pipistrel did not appear against GATI’s fleet in the 2022 FTO list.
The Pipistrel were shown against GATI’s fleet as belonging to the
LSA category for the first time only in the 2023 FTO List, which
was after the issuance of both CoAs recording the aircraft as
falling within the “ Normal ” category.
15.10. EASA by its communication dated 02.08.2023, categorically
clarified that the Pipistrel was a “ Normal ” category aircraft and
not an LSA. Further, EASA stated that the use of CS-LSA as the
certification basis ought not to give rise to any confusion regarding
the aircraft’s classification. EASA requested that the
categorisation reflected on the DGCA’s website be corrected so as
to maintain consistency with the equivalence recognised under the
Chicago Convention. EASA reiterated the same position in its
response dated 27.05.2025 and again in its communication dated
11.09.2025.
15.11. The DGCA had inspected and assessed the Pipistrel, approved the
relevant operational documents, endorsed the Pipistrel on the CPL
of a GATI Pilot on 29.12.2023 and had earlier granted extensions
of aircraft ratings on the Pipistrel. The DGCA also continued to
conduct technical examinations for the issue of CPLs on the
LPA 680/2025 Page 15 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

aircraft until mid-2024. These acts were wholly inconsistent with
the subsequent assertion that the aircraft had always been
classified as LSAs.
15.12. The expression ‘Light Sport Aeroplane’ employed in the
Communication finds no place in the Rules or in the CAR, which
employ the expression ‘Light Sport Aircraft’. An ‘aeroplane’ and
an ‘aircraft’ are distinct in aviation parlance and cannot be used
interchangeably.
15.13. The DGCA had proceeded on the premise that the stall speed of
the aircraft was below 45 knots, as contemplated by Rule 3(33AA)
of the Rules. It was contended that the DGCA had failed to
distinguish between ‘V s 0’, being the minimum controllable steady
flight speed in the landing configuration, and ‘V s ’, being the
minimum controllable steady flight speed in the clean or specified
configuration. The Pilot Operating Handbook, according to the
Appellant, records the stalling speed of the Pipistrel as 53 knots.
15.14. No safety concern was at any point of time raised by the DGCA
in respect of the Pipistrel, and learned Single Judge erred in
sustaining the reclassification upon the general premise that the
DGCA is an expert body entitled to reassess aircraft in the interest
of safety. The position of the DGCA as an expert body does not
afford it unrestricted discretion to act beyond the statutory
framework.
15.15. The Communication was unreasoned and made no reference to the
statutory provision of the Act, the Rules or the CAR under which
LPA 680/2025 Page 16 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

the alleged reclassification had been undertaken. It also did not
explain the effect of the alleged reclassification on student Pilots
who had already completed their training on the Pipistrel or on the
validity of the CoAs issued in respect of the aircraft.
15.16. Further, the Communication was issued without prior notice,
disclosure of the material relied upon, reasons or an opportunity
of hearing. It was thereafter acted upon to reject the CPL
Applications submitted by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, although
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had completed their flying training on
aircraft which, at the relevant time, held valid CoAs issued under
the “ Normal ” category.
15.17. The adverse consequences of the Communication were neither
prospective nor merely administrative. The Communication was
used as the basis for the Rejection Orders by which the CPL
Applications of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were rejected. The effect
was to deprive the student Pilots of the benefit of flying hours
already completed and to adversely affect their careers.
15.18. Even assuming without admitting that the Pipistrel was an LSA,
the existing CoAs continued to remain valid in terms of Clause
2(b) of Section ‘A’ of Schedule II to the Rules, the flying
experience required for the issue of a CPL was to be acquired on
an aircraft having a valid CoA. The DGCA could not, therefore,
disregard the flying hours logged by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5
without first addressing the legal effect of the subsisting CoAs.
LPA 680/2025 Page 17 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

15.19. The Appellant had a legitimate expectation, founded upon the
DGCA’s representations and conduct, that the Pipistrel would be
treated in accordance with the Type Certificate issued by EASA
and the CoAs issued by the DGCA. The subsequent unilateral
change in the treatment of the aircraft, without notice, reasons or
hearing, was arbitrary, contrary to the statutory framework and
violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 (“ Constitution ”).
15.20. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed that the Impugned Judgment
be set aside and the present Appeal be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2
16. Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned Senior Panel Counsel (“ SPC ”) appearing
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made the following submissions:
16.1. The Impugned Judgment does not proceed on any erroneous
factual premise. Learned Single Judge correctly appreciated that
the Pipistrel had been treated as an LSA from the time of its type
acceptance and that GATI was aware of the said position. The
DGCA accepted the Type Certification granted by EASA in
respect of the Pipistrel by Acceptance Letter under CAR Section
6, Series A, Part II. The Type Certification was based on the CS-
LSA certification specifications recorded in EASA’s TDCS.
16.2. The expression “ Normal ” appearing in the DGCA’s Clarification
E-mail is misplaced. The Clarification E-mail was issued in
response to GATI’s query regarding the certification of the
Pipistrel and expressly recorded that the certification basis used
LPA 680/2025 Page 18 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

was CS-LSA. The said communication was required to be read as
a whole and in the context of the TCDS and the applicable Indian
regulatory framework. It could not be construed as an
unconditional representation that the aircraft would be treated as a
“ Normal ” category aircraft for all purposes, including the
licensing requirements applicable to a CPL.
16.3. The DGCA’s Clarification E-mail was issued in the context of the
said type-acceptance process. The reference therein to the aircraft
being type certificated under the “ Normal ” Airworthiness
category did not amount to an unconditional determination that the
aircraft was to be treated as a “ Normal ” category aircraft for all
purposes under Indian law. The same had to be read along with
the reference to CS-LSA and the applicable provisions of the
Rules and the CAR.
16.4. The issuance of CoAs dated 18.08.2022 and 28.10.2022 in respect
of Pipistrel did not determine the eligibility of the aircraft for every
category of flying training or the eligibility of flying hours
undertaken thereon for the grant of a CPL. A CoA concerns the
airworthiness of an aircraft, whereas the eligibility of flying
experience for the purposes of a Pilot’s licence is governed
separately by the Rules. The description of the aircraft as
“ Normal ” in the said CoAs could not override the licensing
requirements prescribed under Schedule II to the Rules.
16.5. The 2022 FTO List did not reflect either of the Pipistrel aircraft in
GATI’s fleet because the relevant TPM revisions for inclusion of
LPA 680/2025 Page 19 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

the aircraft had not been approved as on the date to which the said
list related. The omission of the aircraft from the said list could
not be treated as a representation that the aircraft was not an LSA
or that it was eligible for all purposes associated with a CPL.
16.6. The 2023 FTO List expressly reflected both Pipistrel aircraft in
GATI’s fleet as LSAs. The said list placed GATI on clear notice
of the DGCA’s position. GATI nevertheless continued to impart
flying training on the Pipistrel for the purpose of obtaining CPLs.
16.7. The Communication did not introduce a new classification. It
clarified the regulatory position already reflected in the 2023 FTO
List and arising from the type-acceptance process, the certification
basis recorded in the TCDS and the applicable provisions of the
Rules and the CAR.
16.8. The communication dated 02.08.2023 issued by EASA could not
be treated as determinative of the consequences under Indian law.
EASA’s description of the aircraft under the European regulatory
framework did not prevent the DGCA from determining the
regulatory treatment of the aircraft for purposes of Indian Pilot
licensing, flying training and safety oversight.
16.9. The Working Arrangement executed between the DGCA and
EASA did not require the DGCA to adopt every regulatory
consequence asserted by the Appellant to flow from EASA’s
classification of the aircraft. Clause 3.2(a) provided for acceptance
of an EASA Type Certificate or Restricted Type Certificate
through the procedure prescribed under CAR Section 6, Series A,
LPA 680/2025 Page 20 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

Part II. Clause 5.3 dealt with compliance with the EASA type-
certification basis and environmental-protection requirements.
The Working Arrangement did not prevent the DGCA from
applying the Rules and the CAR governing Pilot licensing and
flying-training requirements. Acceptance of a foreign Type
Certificate did not amount to a surrender of the DGCA’s statutory
responsibility to regulate civil aviation within India.
16.10. Article 33 of the Chicago Convention did not require the DGCA
to disregard the requirements of the Rules. The recognition of a
foreign certificate was subject to the domestic legal and regulatory
framework.
16.11. The expression ‘Light Sport Aeroplane’ used in the EASA
certification could not be considered in isolation from the
applicable Indian regulatory framework. The expression used in
the European certification specifications and the expression ‘Light
Sport Aircraft’ used in the Rules and CAR had to be understood
in their respective regulatory contexts. The difference in
terminology did not establish that the DGCA’s treatment of the
Pipistrel as an LSA was unlawful.
16.12. The fact that an aircraft holds a Type Certificate and a CoA does
not prevent the competent regulatory authority from determining
whether the aircraft falls within a particular operational or licensing
category under the domestic regulatory framework. The DGCA had
not purported to issue a Restricted Type Certificate or an SCoA in
respect of the Pipistrel, nor had it cancelled or revoked the CoAs.
LPA 680/2025 Page 21 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

16.13. The aircraft could not be treated as an LSA unless the existing
CoAs were first cancelled or revoked proceeds on a
misapprehension. The Communication did not alter the validity of
the CoAs. It clarified only the licensing consequences of flying
experience acquired on the Pipistrel.
16.14. The DGCA’s earlier conduct, including its issuance of CoAs,
approval of the maintenance plan and TPM revisions, grant of
FTO approval and endorsement of the Pipistrel on the CPL of one
GATI pilot, could not operate as an estoppel against the DGCA.
No administrative act could confer a right contrary to the Rules or
prevent the DGCA from correcting an earlier error or clarifying
the applicable regulatory position.
16.15. The endorsement of the Pipistrel on the CPL of one GATI pilot on
29.12.2023 was likewise incapable of creating a vested right. An
erroneous administrative action could not compel the DGCA to
perpetuate an incorrect position.
16.16. The DGCA’s consideration of the aircraft’s stall speed
characteristics was a technical exercise falling within its
specialised domain. The distinction between ‘V s 0’ and ‘V s ’, by
itself, did not demonstrate that the DGCA had acted without
jurisdiction or in breach of the Rules.
16.17. Clause (e) of sub-rule (1) of Section ‘J’ of Schedule II to the Rules
requires a minimum of 200 hours of flying experience on
aeroplanes for the grant of a CPL. Upon scrutiny of the CPL
Applications submitted by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the DGCA
LPA 680/2025 Page 22 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

found that a substantial part of the claimed flying experience,
exceeding 90 hours in each case, had been acquired on the
Pipistrel, which was treated as falling within the LSA category.
The CPL Applications of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were accordingly
rejected for failure to satisfy the prescribed aeroplane-flying
experience requirement. The rejection was not based merely on
the nomenclature used in the Communication but on the
application of the licensing requirements to the flying experience
actually claimed by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
16.18. The Rules recognise the use of LSAs for specified licensing
purposes. Paragraph 1(e)(v) of Section ‘E’ of Schedule II permits
solo flight time completed on an LSA, within the prescribed period
and subject to a maximum of 20 hours, to be counted towards the
experience required for a Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes).
The Rules also provide for a separate Pilot’s Licence (Light Sport
Aircraft) under Section ‘IA’ of Schedule II.
16.19. The Communication was issued after GATI had made repeated
representations to the DGCA and the MCA. GATI had
participated in meetings with DGCA Officials, furnished
documents and placed its objections before the authorities. The
issues raised by GATI were also considered by an Expert
Committee, which recorded its opinion on 10.01.2024. The
Communication was neither vague nor unreasoned in the context
in which it was issued. It was issued in response to GATI’s
objections to the 2023 FTO List and clarified the regulatory
LPA 680/2025 Page 23 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

consequences applicable to the Pipistrel. The fact that the
Communication did not accept GATI’s position did not render it
arbitrary. The Communication did not operate retrospectively. It
did not cancel the training undertaken by the student Pilots, withdraw
any licence already granted or revoke the CoAs. It only clarified
the extent to which the flying experience claimed in the CPL
Applications could be reckoned under Schedule II to the Rules.
16.20. The DGCA, being the statutory authority entrusted with the
regulation and safety oversight of civil aviation, was entitled to
revisit and clarify the regulatory treatment of an aircraft on the
basis of technical material, operational experience and
information available to it. Its status as an expert body did not
prevent it from correcting an earlier administrative position.
16.21. The DGCA had not acted in mala fide or with any intention to
prejudice GATI or the student Pilots. The Communication was
issued in the discharge of its statutory functions and was intended
to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements governing
aircraft classification, flying training and pilot licensing. The fact
that the Communication was issued by the DFT did not render it
without jurisdiction. The Communication was issued on behalf of
the DGCA in the context of GATI’s approval as an FTO, the
composition of its fleet and the regulatory consequences of using
the Pipistrel for flying training. No provision had been identified
which barred the DFT from communicating the DGCA’s position
on the issue.
LPA 680/2025 Page 24 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

16.22. Learned Single Judge correctly recognised that the determination
of the applicable aircraft category, the relevant stall speed
parameters, the nature of flying experience required for the grant
of a CPL and the safety consequences of permitting such experience
to be counted involved technical and specialised questions falling
within the domain of the DGCA. In the absence of a clear showing
that the DGCA’s decision was manifestly arbitrary, perverse or
contrary to the statutory framework, judicial interference was
unwarranted. The Appellant had failed to establish any such
infirmity in the Communication or the Rejection Orders.
16.23. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment correctly declined to
interfere with the Communication and the Rejection Orders.
Therefore, the present Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
17. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant and learned SPC appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
as well as perused the material placed on record.
18. At the outset, we may observe that this Appeal raises two central issues
for our determination:
I. Whether the DGCA was justified in classifying the Pipistrel as an
LSA vide the Communication?
II. Whether the flying experience acquired by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5
on the Pipistrel could be counted towards the 200-hour aeroplane-
experience requirement for grant of a CPL under Schedule II to the
Rules, notwithstanding the validity of the CoAs?
LPA 680/2025 Page 25 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

ISSUE NO. I: WHETHER THE DGCA WAS JUSTIFIED IN
CLASSIFYING THE PIPISTREL AS AN LSA VIDE THE
COMMUNICATION?
19. At the outset, it is necessary to consider the distinction sought to be
drawn by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant between the ‘certification
basis’ applied by EASA and the ‘airworthiness category’ assigned to the
Pipistrel. It is undisputed that the TCDS records CS-LSA as the certification
specification employed by EASA while granting Type Certification to the
aircraft. The submission that CS-LSA is merely a technical certification
standard unrelated to the operational classification of the aircraft is untenable.
20. EASA’s communication dated 02.08.2023 describes the Pipistrel as a
“ Normal ” category aircraft under the European regulatory framework. That
description, however, does not detract from the fact that CS-LSA remains the
certification specification recorded in the TCDS. In accepting the Type
Certification under CAR Section 6, Series A, Part II, the DGCA was entitled
to take into account the certification basis recorded in the TCDS. It was this
certification basis, rather than the description of the aircraft as “ Normal ” in
the aforesaid communication, which the DGCA was entitled to consider while
determining the regulatory consequences under the domestic licensing
framework. We are, therefore, unable to accept the Appellant’s contention
that the DGCA was precluded from treating CS-LSA as relevant for
determining how flying experience acquired on the Pipistrel was to be
reckoned under the Rules.
21. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the CoAs dated 18.08.2022
and 28.10.2022 does not advance its case. A CoA concerns the airworthiness
LPA 680/2025 Page 26 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

of an aircraft, namely its fitness to operate safely. It is distinct from the
question whether flying experience acquired on that aircraft may be reckoned
for the purposes of obtaining a Pilot’s licence, which is governed
independently by Schedule II to the Rules. The DGCA has neither cancelled
nor revoked the CoAs issued in respect of VT-DPA and VT-DPB, nor has it
purported to replace them with a Restricted Type Certificate or an SCoA.
Accordingly, the procedural safeguards applicable to cancellation or
revocation of a CoA, or to issuance of an SCoA, were not attracted, since the
Communication did not make any such change.
22. As regards Paragraph 3.4(2)(c) of CAR Section 2, Series F, Part XXIII,
the said provision, on a plain reading, excludes from the LSA category only
an aircraft possessing a CoA issued by a foreign civil aviation authority. It
does not extend to an aircraft holding a CoA issued domestically by the
DGCA. The said provision, therefore, is of no assistance to the Appellant. We
accordingly find no merit in the contention that the “ Normal ” and “ LSA ”
categories are mutually exclusive for all purposes, or that the subsistence of
the CoAs precluded the DGCA from applying the licensing consequences
arising from the CS-LSA certification basis to the flying experience claimed
by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
23. We are also unable to accept the submission that GATI became aware
of the LSA classification only upon publication of the 2023 FTO List. The
Clarification E-mail addressed to GATI expressly disclosed that the
applicable certification basis was CS-LSA. GATI, being an FTO operating in
a specialised and regulated field, cannot plausibly contend that the
significance of the certification basis so communicated was unknown to it. In
LPA 680/2025 Page 27 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

any event, the 2023 FTO List, published on 26.05.2023, identified both
Pipistrel aircraft forming part of GATI’s fleet as LSAs. This was several
months prior to the issuance of the Communication and the Rejection Orders.
The omission of the aircraft from the 2022 FTO List, which Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 attribute to the pendency of the relevant TPM revisions, cannot be
construed as an affirmative representation that the aircraft fell, or would
continue to fall, outside the LSA category. After publication of the 2023 FTO
List, GATI corresponded with the DGCA and the MCA while continuing to
impart flying training on the Pipistrel for the stated purpose of CPL
qualification. The Appellant cannot, therefore, contend that it acted
throughout in ignorance of the DGCA’s position.
24. We find no merit in the submission that the communications issued by
EASA on 02.08.2023 and 27.05.2025, or the Working Arrangement, obliged
the DGCA to treat the Pipistrel as a “ Normal ” category aircraft for domestic
licensing purposes. EASA’s description of the aircraft under the European
regulatory framework, however categorical, governs the position under that
framework and does not bind the DGCA in the exercise of its independent
statutory functions under the Act, the Rules and the CAR.
25. Clause 3.2(a) of the Working Arrangement provides for acceptance of
an EASA Type Certificate through issuance of a Letter of Type Acceptance.
Clause 5.3 of the Working Arrangement confines itself to compliance with
the certification basis and environmental protection requirements. Neither
provision purports to regulate or restrict the DGCA’s licensing functions
under Schedule II to the Rules. Any such interpretation would impermissibly
enlarge the scope of the Working Arrangement.
LPA 680/2025 Page 28 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

26. Article 33 of the Chicago Convention, which contemplates recognition
of certificates of airworthiness issued by other contracting States, does not
require a contracting State to suspend or disregard its domestic regulatory
framework governing the licensing of Pilots. The distinction in nomenclature
between “Light Sport Aeroplane ” as used in the European specifications and
“Light Sport Aircraft ” as used in the Rules and the CAR is, in the present
context, one of terminology and not of substance. It does not, therefore,
establish that the DGCA’s classification was contrary to law.
27. The Appellant’s further submission that the DGCA was estopped, by
reason of its prior conduct, from applying the LSA classification is equally
devoid of merit. The conduct relied upon includes approval of the
maintenance plan, approval of successive TPM revisions, grant of FTO status,
extension of aircraft ratings and endorsement of the Pipistrel on the CPL of
one GATI Pilot on 29.12.2023. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel
against the exercise of a statutory function. An erroneous or inadvertent
administrative act cannot create a vested right compelling the authority to
perpetuate such error, particularly in matters concerning public safety and
licensing standards. The endorsement of the Pipistrel on the CPL of one Pilot,
made during the pendency of an ongoing and unresolved dispute on the very
issue in question, cannot be treated as a considered or binding determination
in respect of the CPL Applications submitted by Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The
said Applications were required to be examined on their own merits.
28. We are also unable to sustain the challenge based on the distinction
between ‘V s 0’ and ‘V s ’ and the stall speed recorded in the Pilot Operating
Handbook. The determination of the applicable stall speed parameter for the
LPA 680/2025 Page 29 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

purposes of Rule 3(33AA) is a technical matter falling squarely within the
specialised domain of the DGCA. The material placed on record does not
establish that the parameter adopted by the DGCA was perverse, mala fide ,
or vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. In the absence of
such a finding, this Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction in a writ
proceeding, would not be justified in substituting its own assessment of a
technical airworthiness parameter for that of the expert regulatory authority.
29. The challenge based on an alleged violation of the principles of natural
justice is devoid of merit. The Communication was not issued without prior
notice or in isolation. It followed an extended exchange that commenced with
GATI’s objection dated 04.07.2023 to the 2023 FTO List, continued through
correspondence with several Directorates of the DGCA and the MCA, and
included a meeting with DGCA officials on 27.12.2023. The process
culminated in the report of an Expert Committee dated 10.01.2024. At each
stage, GATI had the opportunity to place its objections, factual position and
legal submissions before the DGCA. Those objections were considered before
the Communication was issued. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that
GATI was denied notice or an opportunity of hearing. The Communication
was, in substance, the DGCA’s response to the objections raised by GATI
itself.
30. The plea that the Appellant’s legitimate expectation, allegedly arising
from the Clarification E-mail and the DGCA’s subsequent conduct, was
defeated in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution is also
untenable. Even where a legitimate expectation is established, it cannot fetter
the duty of a regulatory authority to correctly apply licensing and safety
LPA 680/2025 Page 30 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

standards. Such expectation must yield to the public interest underlying the
regulatory framework, particularly where the competence of prospective
commercial Pilots is concerned. The Appellant has not established any
discriminatory or arbitrary treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. The
classification was based on the certification basis recorded in the TCDS and
was applied in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework. Articles
19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution are likewise not independently attracted
in the absence of any established arbitrariness.
31. Finally, the power exercised by the DGCA under Section 5A of the Act
to classify and periodically reassess aircraft is entrusted to it as the expert
statutory regulator of civil aviation safety. The determination of the applicable
certification basis and the regulatory consequences flowing therefrom involve
technical and specialised considerations. Interference by this Court would be
warranted only if the decision were shown to be manifestly arbitrary,
perverse, mala fide or contrary to the statutory framework. No such infirmity
has been demonstrated in the present case.
32. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the DGCA was
justified in classifying the Pipistrel as an LSA by the Communication.
ISSUE NO. II: WHETHER FLYING EXPERIENCE ON THE
PIPISTREL COULD BE COUNTED FOR GRANT OF CPL?
33. As regards the validity of the Rejection Orders, under Section ‘J’ of
Schedule II to the Rules, an applicant seeking grant of a CPL is required to
establish 200 hours of flying experience on aeroplanes.
34. It is not in dispute that more than 90 hours of the flying experience
claimed by each of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was acquired on the Pipistrel. Once
LPA 680/2025 Page 31 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

the Pipistrel is treated as an LSA for the reasons recorded hereinabove, such
experience cannot be reckoned towards the 200-hour aeroplane-experience
requirement for grant of a CPL.
35. The only limited exception is contained in Paragraph No. 1(e)(v) of
Section ‘E’ of Schedule II, which permits a maximum of 20 hours of solo
flying experience on an LSA to be reckoned towards the requirements for a
Private Pilot Licence, and not towards a CPL. The subsistence of the CoAs
does not alter this position. Clause 2(b) of Section ‘A’ of Schedule II requires
flying experience to be acquired on an aircraft holding a valid CoA. The said
requirement relates to the airworthiness of the aircraft on which such
experience is acquired; it does not convert flying experience acquired on an
LSA into aeroplane experience reckonable for the purposes of grant of a CPL.
36. Consequently, Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 did not possess the requisite 200
hours of reckonable aeroplane flying experience. The Rejection Orders, being
founded on the said shortfall, do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
CONCLUSION
37. In view of the above analysis, the classification of the Pipistrel as an
LSA by virtue of the Communication, as well as the Rejection Orders founded
thereon, are legally sustainable.
38. Learned Single Judge has correctly declined to interfere with the
Communication and the Rejection Orders. The Impugned Judgment does not
disclose any error warranting interference in the present intra court Appeal.
39. Since the termination of the LDO Agreement by notice dated
03.10.2025 is the subject matter of separate proceedings instituted by the
Appellant, we clarify that nothing contained in this Judgment shall be
LPA 680/2025 Page 32 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the said proceedings,
which shall be decided independently and uninfluenced by any observation
made hereinabove.
40. In view of the foregoing, we find no infirmity in the Impugned
Judgment dated 26.07.2024 so as to warrant interference. The present Appeal
is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending Applications stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026 /
N
LPA 680/2025 Page 33 of 33
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
14:19:28