PIL challenging Visakhapatnam airport flight shutdown sent to Andhra Pradesh HC on forum conveniens grounds

The Petitioner instituted a Public Interest Litigation challenging the complete discontinuance of scheduled commercial flight operations at Visakhapatnam Airport from 17 August 2026 and their transfer exclusively to the newly constructed Greenfield Airport at Bhogapuram.

The Petitioner contended that Visakhapatnam Airport was a centrally located, fully functional airport developed through substantial public investment, and that its closure would cause inconvenience to residents and commuters, particularly because Bhogapuram Airport was approximately 50 kilometres from Visakhapatnam and was not yet fully functional.

The Petitioner sought a policy review permitting dual-airport operations and relied on a representation dated 14 August 2026, which allegedly remained unanswered.

The Respondents objected to the maintainability of the PIL before the Delhi High Court, stating that an identical PIL, W.P.(PIL) No. 191/2026, was pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that the grievance was substantially connected with Visakhapatnam and its adjoining areas.

Whether the Delhi High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the Respondents being located within Delhi and the alleged policy decision having been taken there.

Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens and the principle of dominant cause of action required the Petitioner to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where the principal grievance and affected persons were located.

Whether the pendency of an identical PIL before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh justified declining to entertain the present petition in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

Article 226(2) permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where even a part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction; however, the existence of territorial jurisdiction does not compel the Court to adjudicate the matter on merits.

The Court may decline to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum conveniens, particularly where the dominant or substantial cause of action and the affected parties are located elsewhere.

The Court relied on M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254, which holds that a small fraction of the cause of action may confer jurisdiction, but is not by itself determinative of the forum that should hear the matter.

The Court also applied the principles of avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and prevention of conflicting or inconsistent findings where an identical proceeding is already pending before another competent High Court.

The Court accepted that Delhi could arguably possess territorial jurisdiction because the Respondents were situated there and the policy decision was allegedly taken in New Delhi.

Nevertheless, it held that the substance of the grievance concerned the closure of flight operations at Visakhapatnam Airport, the transfer of operations to Bhogapuram, and the resulting inconvenience to residents and commuters in Andhra Pradesh.

Accordingly, the dominant and substantial cause of action was more closely connected with Andhra Pradesh than Delhi.

Applying Kusum Ingots, the Court held that the existence of a partial cause of action in Delhi did not require it to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.

The pendency of an identical PIL before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh further supported declining jurisdiction, since parallel proceedings could produce multiplicity and inconsistent findings.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to agitate the matter before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the challenge.