Violation of NOC height limits does not preclude conducting an aeronautical study for safety reassessment.

The petitioners, real estate developers in Ahmedabad, obtained No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and development permissions from local municipal authorities for building projects

Upon completion, the AAI/Airport operators reported that the top elevation of the buildings exceeded the permissible limits specified in the original NOCs

The petitioners contended that the actual height of construction remained within sanctioned limits, but the perceived excess resulted from variations in subsequent ground level/site elevation recordings, which were beyond their control

The respondents issued notices for demolition/stoppage of work and rejected requests for a revised NOC or an aeronautical study, citing Aerodrome Safeguarding Circulars (ADSAC) 05 and 08 of 2020 which mandate that a structure must first conform to the original NOC (requiring partial demolition) before an appeal or study can be considered

1. Whether the respondent authorities are justified in insisting upon the demolition of the alleged excess construction as a precursor to conducting an aeronautical study

2. Whether the refusal to conduct an aeronautical study based on inner-departmental circulars (ADSAC) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 when such a study is intended to determine actual safety hazards

Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015 (GSR 751(E)), specifically Clause 5 of Schedule II, which allows for an aeronautical study to determine if an object adversely affects aircraft safety

Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994

Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing that administrative actions must be rational and non-discriminatory

Doctrine from KGA Investments v. Union of India and M/s. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that an aeronautical study should be conducted at the petitioner's cost to determine safety before ordering demolition

The court found the respondents' insistence on prior demolition "irrational and arbitrary" reasoning that the primary objective of the 2015 Rules and the aeronautical study is to ensure aviation safety and efficient airspace utilization; thus, a study should determine if a hazard actually exists before a draconian measure like demolition is enforced

The court noted that ADSAC 05 of 2020, which bars studies for violators, cannot operate in derogation of the parent statutory rules (GSR 751(E)) which do not contain such an absolute embargo

The court highlighted that similar revised permissions had been granted to adjoining projects, rendering the denial to the petitioners discriminatory under Article 14

The court emphasized that the "application of mind" is a fundamental policy of Indian law, and the respondents failed this test by blindly applying circulars without considering the specific facts of ground level variation

The court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned notices and orders directing demolition prior to a survey, and directed respondents to pass fresh orders based on the findings of said study, reserving liberty for legal steps for demolition only if the study confirms an actual safety hazard