Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3011
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Date of Decision: 21 April, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 3423/2020
PANKAJ BHARGAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hemant Kumar and
Mr. Shivam Jangra, Advocates.
versus
AIR INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Fauzia Shakil and
Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:-
“1. Set aside the impugned order Dt. 06.01.2020, passed by the
Executive Director (Commercial), Air India Ltd.;
2. Stay the impugned order Dt. 06.01.2020, passed by the Executive
Director (Commercial), Air India Ltd., till the pendency of the
present proceedings;
3. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit..”
2. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition on the ground that as a result of disinvestment process
initiated by the Government of India, Air India Limited (‘AIL’) has
ceased to be a public body and therefore, no writ can lie against AIL
in the circumstances that exist today. It is submitted that originally
AIL was a statutory body constituted under the Air Corporations Act,
1953, however, post its repeal and in terms of the Air Corporations
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2023
17:23:22
W.P.(C) 3423/2020 Page 1 of 4
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3011
(Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, it had become a
wholly owned company of the Government of India. It is at that stage
that the present writ petition was filed, however, in light of the
position that obtains today, where AIL has been privatized and the
entire shareholding of the Government of India in AIL has been
transferred to M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd., (a wholly owned subsidiary of
M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd.), no writ petition can lie under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India as AIL is no longer a public body or
Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. In order to support the submissions, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned
counsel for the Respondent relies on a judgment of this Court in
Naresh Kumar Beri and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2022
SCC OnLine Del 3585, relevant para of which is as under:
“23. The Court also finds merit in the second objection which
was addressed on behalf of the respondents who had contended
that since AIL had ceased to be a government company by virtue of
the exercise of privatization noted above, the writ petition itself
would cease to be maintainable. This Court notes that High Courts
of the country appear to have consistently taken this position as
would be manifest from a reading of the decision rendered in R.S.
Madireddy by the Bombay High Court and Tarun Kumar Banerjee
by the Karnataka High Court. The said position has also been duly
reiterated in the judgments rendered by our Court in Asulal Loya,
Ladley Mohan and Satya Sagar. The writ petition would thus
warrant dismissal on this score also.”
3. Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, per contra , submits that the judgment passed by the
Bombay High Court in R.S. Madireddy and Another v. Union of
India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2657, dismissing the writ
petition on account of disinvestment of AIL has been challenged
before the Supreme Court and notice has been issued on 16.01.2023.
Learned counsel also expresses an apprehension that if the writ
petition is disposed of and Petitioner is left to resort to other remedies,
AIL may, in future, disown its liability towards the Petitioner on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2023
17:23:22
W.P.(C) 3423/2020 Page 2 of 4
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3011
ground that it is privatized.
4. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, in response, submits that albeit notice has
been issued by the Supreme Court, as rightly contended by the counsel
for the Petitioner, however there is no stay. She further submits that
the apprehension expressed on behalf of the Petitioner is wholly
misplaced inasmuch as, if the Petitioner was to succeed before the
Appropriate Forum, the liability shall rest entirely on AIL.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for AIL and counsel for the
Petitioner, the question that pronouncedly emanates is whether the
writ petition is liable to dismissed on ground of maintainability, in
wake of the admitted position that during the pendency of this
petition, on 27.01.2022, 100% shareholding of Air India has been
acquired by M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd. and Air India has ceased to be a
Government controlled company. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Naresh Kumar Beri (supra) has already examined this issue and
held that writ petition ceases to be maintainable. The judgement
squarely covers the present case and this Court is not persuaded to
take a different view. It is true that when the writ petition was filed, it
was maintainable as AIL was amenable to the writ jurisdiction,
however, under the changed scenario, this Court is precluded from
issuing a writ of mandamus against AIL.
6. Having said that, I may also pen down that Mr. Hemant Kumar
is not wrong in questioning as to who would bear the liability in case
the Petitioner was to take recourse to other remedies in a different
Forum and succeed. This concern or disquiet, is put to rest by the
assurance given on behalf of AIL, that in the event of the Petitioner
succeeding in establishing his claims, the liability shall be owned and
borne by AIL. The assurance given on behalf of AIL is taken on
record and needless to state shall bind the Respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2023
17:23:22
W.P.(C) 3423/2020 Page 3 of 4
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3011
7. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed, granting
liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to remedies available to him
in law, in an appropriate Forum. It is made clear that the time period,
for which the writ petition has been pending in this Court, will be
excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, should the
Petitioner seek any remedy by instituting fresh proceedings in a
Forum, where question of limitation will be relevant and may arise.
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 21, 2023/shivam
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2023
17:23:22
W.P.(C) 3423/2020 Page 4 of 4