Gopala Krishna Kosaraju vs Union Of India & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010410682026
+ W.P.(C) 12692/2026 & CM APPL. 58936/2026
GOPALA KRISHNA KOSARAJU …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr.
V. Pali, GP with Mr. A. S. Vamsi
Krishna, Ms. A. Mishra, Ms. Riya
Garg, Ms. N. Singh, Mr. K. Khullar,
Advs. for UOI
Mr. Anshuman Gupta and Mr. Karan
Aggarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
1. The present Public Interest Litigation (“ PIL ”) has been instituted
challenging the complete closure of scheduled commercial flight operations
at Visakhapatnam Airport with effect from 17.08.2026 and the transfer of
such operations exclusively to the newly built Greenfield Airport at
Bhogapuram.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while the
development of the Bhogapuram Greenfield Airport is welcome, the closure
of the fully functional and centrally located Visakhapatnam Airport is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12692/2026 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:23:31

arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly as the said airport had operated for
nearly three decades and was developed through substantial public
investment. It was urged that discontinuing scheduled commercial flight
operations from such an established airport results in underutilisation of
valuable public infrastructure, especially when Bhogapuram is situated
approximately 50 kilometres from the city centre and is yet to become fully
functional.
3. It was further submitted that requiring passengers to travel to
Bhogapuram would cause hardship to residents of Visakhapatnam and
adjoining areas and would raise concerns of accessibility and public safety,
particularly in medical emergencies.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that there is no
legal or policy embargo on dual-airport operations, as such arrangements
exist in Goa, Delhi and Mumbai. It was urged that the discontinuance of
scheduled commercial operations at Visakhapatnam Airport, despite its
existing infrastructure and public utility, is arbitrary and unsupported by
cogent justification, particularly when the continued operation of both
airports would better serve passenger convenience, accessibility and public
interest.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that a detailed
representation dated 14.08.2026 had been submitted seeking a policy review
for dual-airport co-existence; however, no response was received from the
Respondents. Accordingly, the Petitioner has preferred the present PIL.
6. At the outset, learned CGSC for the Respondents raised a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the present PIL before this Court. It was
submitted that an identical PIL, being W.P.(PIL) No. 191/2026, is already
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12692/2026 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:23:31

pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was further submitted
that the dominant cause of action has arisen at Visakhapatnam, as the
grievance concerns the closure of scheduled commercial flight operations at
Visakhapatnam Airport and the alleged inconvenience caused to residents
and commuters in and around Visakhapatnam. Accordingly, it was urged
that the present PIL ought to have been instituted before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, which is more closely connected with the subject matter.
7. In response, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both
Respondents are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and
that the impugned policy decision was taken at New Delhi. It was urged that
the situs of decision-making forms a material part of the cause of action
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and, therefore, this
Court is competent to entertain the present PIL.
8. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned
CGSC for the Respondents and considered the rival submissions regarding
the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondents with respect to
the entertainability of the present PIL before this Court.
9. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the submissions advanced by
learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned CGSC for the
Respondents, we are of the view that although this Court may have
territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the Respondents are situated within its
jurisdiction, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would be the more
appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance raised by the Petitioner. In
the facts of the present case, the issue pertaining to the closure of scheduled
commercial operations at Visakhapatnam Airport and the shifting thereof to
Bhogapuram has a direct and substantial impact on the residents and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12692/2026 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:23:31

commuters of Visakhapatnam and its adjoining areas. The situs of the
principal grievance is, therefore, more closely and substantially connected
with the State of Andhra Pradesh, where the persons stated to be affected are
located. In such circumstances, even if a part of the cause of action may be
said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, we are of
the considered opinion that the doctrine of forum conveniens and the
principle of dominant cause of action would warrant the Petitioner
approaching the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is the proper and
more convenient forum for adjudication of the issues raised herein.
Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court
in M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. , (2004) 6
SCC 254, wherein it has been held as under:
“ 10. Keeping in view the expressions used is clause (2) of Article
226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction
of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the
Court will have jurisdiction in the matter.
*
30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part
of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter
on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum
conveniens. ”
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the grievance raised in the present PIL substantially pertains to the
alleged inconvenience caused to the public residing in and around
Visakhapatnam on account of the discontinuance of scheduled commercial
flight operations at Visakhapatnam Airport. The dominant and substantial
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12692/2026 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:23:31

cause of action, therefore, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
11. The mere fact that the Respondents are situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court would not, by itself, justify the exercise of
discretionary writ jurisdiction by this Court, particularly when the subject
matter of the present PIL and the grievance sought to be espoused are
substantially and predominantly connected with the State of Andhra
Pradesh. Further, since a PIL raising an identical grievance has already been
instituted before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, entertaining the present
PIL would result in multiplicity of proceedings and may also give rise to the
possibility of conflicting or inconsistent findings. Accordingly, the
Petitioner ought to approach the jurisdictional High Court, namely, the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, for appropriate relief, if so advised.
12. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed on the ground of forum
conveniens . It is needless to say that the Petitioner will be at liberty to
agitate his case before the jurisdictional High Court. We further clarify that
we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the present PIL.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 /‘gsr’
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 12692/2026 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:23:31