Delhi HC Dismisses Passenger’s ₹1.09 Lakh COVID-Era Air India Refund Plea, Says Privatized Airline Isn’t Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction

In brief

The question

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against Air India and the other private respondents after Air India’s disinvestment.

The court held

The Court held that it had no grounds to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition.

It also directed

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue any alternate remedies available in law.

01Facts

The petitioner booked four round-trip tickets from Delhi to Frankfurt for travel in March 2020, for a total of ₹1,09,688.

p. 2

In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, he sought to reschedule the journey and have date-change charges waived.

p. 2

The tickets were instead converted into open tickets after cancellation charges were imposed.

p. 2

On 30 December 2020, the petitioner sought a refund, which was not paid.

p. 2

He filed this petition seeking a refund from Respondents 1–3 and directions to Respondent 4 to enforce its circular dated 7 October 2020.

pp. 1–2

The respondents challenged maintainability, contending that Air India had been disinvested and was no longer a government entity.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against Air India and the other private respondents after Air India’s disinvestment.

pp. 2–5

ii.2. Whether the petitioner had established a basis for mandamus directing Respondent 4 to enforce its circular and take action against Respondents 1 and 2.

p. 7

03Law Applied

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs to a person or authority for enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose”; however, a private body is amenable to writ jurisdiction only where, among other recognised grounds, it performs a public duty or owes a positive obligation of a public nature.

pp. 3–6

The Article 12 inquiry considers whether, on the cumulative facts, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the pervasive control of the Government; regulatory control alone is insufficient.

pp. 3–6

The Court relied on R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965, including its discussion of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, Andi Mukta and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas.

pp. 3–6

A writ of mandamus requires a demonstrated failure by the respondent to discharge a duty it is legally obligated to perform.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 14

04Reasoning

The Court applied R.S. Madireddy to conclude that, following the transfer of the Government of India’s entire shareholding to Respondent 2 on 27 January 2022, Air India was a private entity no longer subject to the Government’s deep and pervasive control.

pp. 5–6

The fact that it provided air transport services of public importance did not, by itself, make it amenable to writ jurisdiction; Respondents 2 and 3 were also private entities.

pp. 5–6

As to Respondent 4, the petitioner had not shown that it neglected or failed to discharge a statutory duty, so the requirements for mandamus were not met.

p. 7