Delhi HC reserves judgment in appeal by Indigo against shifting to Terminal 2

The Delhi High Court yesterday reserved its judgment on Indigo’s appeal against the Single Judge Order. The Single Judge Bench of Justice AK Chawla had directed it to follow DIAL’s decision regarding shifting of part of its operations from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 of the Delhi Airport..Justice AK Chawla had dismissed IndiGo’s petition challenging Delhi International Airport Limited (DIALs) directions in December last year, holding that none of the issues raised by the airline fell within the domain of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India..Interglobe Aviation (owner of Indigo Airlines) represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi, in its appeal had stated that the Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the said directions were irrational, discriminatory and arbitrary..The Court, during the previous hearing, had given time to the sparring parties to reach an amicable settlement. However, Rohatgi yesterday informed the Division Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli that the parties could not reach a settlement as a result of which, the Bench asked the parties to commence arguments on merits..Rohatgi argued that as per DIAL’s decision and the order of the Single Judge, Indigo will have to divide its operations between three terminals, which was not feasible..He further submitted that terminal 1 has a capacity of 20 mppa (million passengers per annum), which will be reduced to 17 mppa during the re-development stage. He stated that since Indigo’s requirement is less than 17 mppa, it can be accommodated at terminal 1 completely..Go Air represented by Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Darpan Wadhva and Advocate Rajshekhar Rao briefed by Karanjawala and Co. Partner Meghna Mishra and Senior Associate Ankit Rajgarhia, submitted that there is no specific prayer against Go Air..It was further stated that they volunteered to shift their entire operations to terminal 2 since they are minuscule in number and dividing their sectors between two terminals would have impacted the entire infrastructure. Kaul also submitted that these are policy decisions wherein the Court has a limited role to play..Representing Spicejet, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta submitted that they are willing to abide by DIAL’s directions as long as they are uniform keeping in mind the larger public perspective..Representing DIAL, Senior Advocate Parag Tripathi cited various Supreme Court judgments, which stated that the Court has a very limited role to play regarding policy and administrative decisions..He further stated that Indigo’s conduct should also be considered before going into the merits of the case while referring to Indigo’s actions as that of a dictator. He produced various documents alleging that Indigo has been submitting inconsistent figures regarding mppa..After hearing the parties at length, the Division Bench reserved its judgment.