Rohan Dev vs Union Of India & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court
Case type
Writ Petition Civil
Decided on
11-03-2026

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4541/2023
Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

ROHAN DEV .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC, Mr. Sahaj Garg,
Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv. for DGCA.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ,
Order, Directions of similar nature to direct the Respondent No.2, to
issue Commercial Pilot license (CPL) to the Petitioner herein in his
DGCA File no. 1-1949/2010-L-2. and further
b. Any other relief/s which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case .

2. The petitioner claims to have completed mandatory commercial pilot
training at M/s Sai Flytech Aviation, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, from
02.12.2010 to 30.09.2011, completing 70 hours and 40 minutes of flying and
at Saraswati Aviation Academy, Sultanpur, U.P., from 18.07.2013 to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

07.09.2019, completing 171 hours and 20 minutes of flying, thereby
fulfilling the requirement of 200 hours to be eligible for a Commercial Pilot
License ( CPL ).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has cleared all examinations
conducted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation ( DGCA ) in 2014
and 2015, which are mandatory for applying for a CPL. Thereafter, he
submitted an application for issuance of CPL to the DGCA on 09.08.2019,
along with the requisite documents. Subsequently, several representations
were made. However, the application was allegedly not considered. The
delay has been attributed to a pending vigilance/investigation concerning
M/s Sai Flytech Aviation.
4. On 08.08.2023, this court directed the DGCA to examine the
petitioner’s case. Thereupon, on 23.08.2023, DGCA considered the
petitioner’s grievance and passed the following order:
“In this regard, it is intimated that in accordance with the directives
issued by the Hon'ble High Court, if your disputed 70:40 hours of flying
experience are disregarded, you will not be meeting the requirement of
total flying experience of 200 hours in accordance with Para 1(e) of
Section 'J' of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 read in conjunction
with Para 8(e) of Section 'A' of Schedule II of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, for
issue of CPL and thereby rendering you disqualified for issue of CPL
against your application dated 09.08.2019.

As on date, several other requirements for issue of CPL i.e. knowledge
papers, recency, medical, ELP etc. have lapsed. Therefore, by undertaking
28:40 hours of flying on date, you will meet the total flying experience
element of the requirement only and all other requirements mentioned
above would continue to remain lapsed.

Accordingly, you will have to submit a fresh application after meeting all
the requirements CPL on the next date of submission. The detailed
analysis of the requirements for issue of CPL expired and to be met on the
next date of submission is enclosed as Appendix-A.

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

The issues with the approval of competent authority. ”

5. The decision of the DGCA, thus, would indicate that if the disputed
70 hours 40 minutes of flying experience obtained from M/s Sai Flytech
Aviation is excluded, the petitioner does not meet the minimum 200 flying
hours requirement under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 for issuance of a CPL.
DGCA further stated that several other requirements, such as knowledge
papers, medical validity, recency, and english language proficiency, have
also expired. Consequently, the DGCA advised the petitioner to file a fresh
application if he meets the necessary requirements.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has certain reservations
in applying afresh and he submits that the eligibility of the petitioner should
be considered as on the date of application, i.e. 09.08.2019. According to
him, if the petitioner fulfils the criteria as on 09.08.2019, there is no reason
as to why his application should not be favourably considered.
7. As per Schedule II, Section J, Para 1(e) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, an
applicant for a CPL must have not less than 200 hours of flight time as a
pilot of an aeroplane within the prescribed period prior to the application,
along with fulfilment of other mandatory requirements including valid
knowledge examination papers, medical fitness, recency of flying, and
English Language Proficiency, failing which the licence cannot be issued.
Some of the permissions, which are required for obtaining CPL had
admittedly expired as has been noted in paragraph no.2 of the order dated
13.01.2026, the same is extracted as under:
“2. A perusal of the aforesaid would indicate that the petitioner meets the
requirements of total flying experience; however, all other requirements
as mentioned therein have lapsed. The appendix shown to the Court
reflects that the air regulation was valid up to 23.02.2020, air navigation
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

was valid up to 30.11.2019, aviation meteorology was valid up to
19.05.2020, technical general was valid up to 12.08.2019 and technical
specific (C 172 type aircraft) was up to 15.11.2021. The remarks against
each of the requirements clearly states that those permissions stood
expired. The aforesaid table is extracted as under:
Paper Valid upto Remarks
a) Air Regulation 23.02.2020 Expired
b) Air Navigation 30.11.2019 Expired
c) Aviation
Meteorology
19.05.2020 Expired
e) Technical General 12.08.2019 Expired
f) Technical Specific
(C 172 type aircraft)
15.11.2021 Expired


8. The Court finds that the petitioner may have been eligible on
09.08.2019. However, we are now in 2026, and if, in between, the petitioner
has become ineligible on account of lapse of permissions, this fact cannot be
lost sight of, most importantly, owing to the nature of the job the petitioner
will eventually discharge.
9. The petitioner's submission that the similarly situated candidates have
been granted license is concerned, the same cannot be examined in the
absence of there being entire record with respect to those applicants. As of
now, it is not clearly discernible that the others have also fulfilled the
requisite conditions, hence no comparison can be made at this stage.
10. The aforesaid aspect will have to be examined by the respondent-
authority. In any case, in absence of valid permission, for air regulation, air
navigation, aviation meteorology, technical general and technical specific.
CPL cannot be granted.
11. The writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
direct the DGCA to grant the license. The same would not be under the
fitness of the things as it would contravene the mandate of Aircraft Rules
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14

1937. The petitioner who seeks to obtain the CPL must fulfil all
requirements of having valid permission as has been noted hereinabove.
12. It is well settled that the Court cannot issue directions contrary to the
statutory rules and the writ of mandamus cannot be granted where the
petitioner does not fulfil all the necessary eligibility criteria. On the date of
issuance of the license, it remains undisputed that the petitioner has to have
all valid permissions both at the time of submitting the application for the
CPL and those required at the time of issuance. Filing an application does
not create an indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner . Fulfilment of the
eligibility criteria on the date of application may entitle the petitioner to
apply for the license, however, on the date of consideration, the respondent-
authorities are well within their power to examine whether the petitioner has
all other necessary permissions.
13. In view of the aforesaid, there is no justification to direct the
respondents to issue the CPL.
14. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh in accordance with
extant rules. The respondents shall consider the same with due expedition.
15. Petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 11, 2026/P/ss




Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
12:31:14