Mandamus cannot be issued for license grant if mandatory statutory eligibility criteria have lapsed by the date of consideration.

The Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to issue him a Commercial Pilot License (CPL)

The Petitioner claimed to have completed the mandatory 200 hours of flying experience across two flight schools between 2010 and 2019 and passed the requisite DGCA examinations in 2014 and 2015

He applied for the CPL on August 9, 2019

The DGCA withheld the license due to a pending investigation regarding 70 hours and 40 minutes of flying logged at M/s Sai Flytech Aviation

In an order dated August 23, 2023, the DGCA concluded that if the disputed hours were excluded, the Petitioner failed the 200-hour requirement

Furthermore, the DGCA noted that by the time of consideration, several mandatory requirements—including knowledge papers, medical fitness, and English Language Proficiency—had lapsed

The court applied Schedule II, Section J, Para 1(e) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which mandates a minimum of 200 hours of flight time for CPL applicants

It further relied on Section A, Para 8(e) of the same Schedule, which requires valid knowledge examinations, medical fitness, recency of flying, and English Language Proficiency (ELP) at the time of license issuance

The court followed the established legal principle that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in contravention of statutory rules and that a petitioner must fulfill all eligibility criteria at the time of the license's issuance, as the mere filing of an application does not create an indefeasible right

The court observed that while the Petitioner may have fulfilled the criteria on the date of his application in 2019, several mandatory permissions—including Air Regulation, Air Navigation, and Aviation Meteorology—had since expired by 2026

The court emphasized that the nature of the Petitioner’s intended profession (pilot) necessitates strict adherence to safety standards and current proficiency

It rejected the Petitioner's argument that eligibility should be frozen at the date of application, ruling that the respondent-authorities are legally empowered to verify that all permissions are valid at the time of consideration and issuance

The court reasoned that directing the DGCA to grant a license despite expired technical and medical requirements would violate the mandate of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, and exceed the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

The court declined to issue a Writ of Mandamus, stating there was no justification to direct the issuance of the CPL under the current circumstances

The petition was disposed of, granting the Petitioner liberty to apply afresh in accordance with extant rules, which the respondents were directed to consider with due expedition