Indigo to shift operations to Terminal 2 as Delhi HC dismisses plea

The Delhi High Court today dismissed the plea by IndiGo Airlines challenging DIAL’s (Delhi International Airport Limited) directions to shift part of its operations from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 of the Delhi Airport..IndiGo had filed a petition seeking issuance of writs of Certiorari and Prohibition in respect of the directions whereby DIAL had directed Indigo to operate its flights to and fro Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru w.e.f. January 4, 2018, from Terminal 2 of IGI Airport..DIAL has undertaken the exercise of renovation and expansion of the capacity of Terminal 1, as per the Master Plan 2016, and as a temporary measure, required operations of some flights to be re-located from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2..IndiGo, represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi, who were instructed by Advocate Gaurav Sarin, challenged the decision on the premise that DIAL had failed to adhere to a fair, transparent and balanced approach in arriving at the decision to safeguard the interest of the public and the concerned airlines..It was further stated that the decision was an abuse of authority and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Rohatgi contended that,.“The impugned direction/decision of ‘DIAL’ was wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustifiable.” .It was also contended that with the impugned decision, the operations of IndiGo will get divided into three terminals i.e. Terminal 1, 2 and 3, and that it would be subjected to further operational difficulties, besides causing much inconvenience to the passengers..It was suggested that GoAir and Spicejet, keeping in view their traffic load and the operations, could be accommodated at Terminal 2 and IndiGo could continue to operate from Terminal 1..DIAL was represented by Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Rajiv Nayyar and Parag Tripathi and Advocate Saket Sikri, who were instructed by DMD Advocates..Salve contended that the impugned decision had come to be taken on due deliberations, keeping in mind the diverse factors of security and convenience of the passengers and the other stakeholders..It was further contended that the impugned decision was the most viable solution and therefore, it did not suffer from any element of unreasonableness, arbitrariness or malice. Salve also stated that such administrative decision was not subject to judicial review and that the Court is not to sit in appeal over the impugned decision to see whether it is fair or not..Representing Spicejet, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta contended that while there were difficulties in operating the flights from Terminal 2, it was totally opposed to IndiGo operating from Terminal 1 exclusively, inasmuch as it would be anti-competitive..GoAir was represented by Karanjawala and Co, led by Advocate Darpan Wadhwa..The Single Judge Bench of Justice AK Chawla observed that,.“IndiGo’s assertion of passengers’ inconvenience on account of shifting of arrival and departure from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, as its flights carry both inbound and outbound passengers, feeding IndiGo’s entire network to/fro from Delhi, is more suggestive of its own commercial interests and its desire to operate from only one Terminal and that too, Terminal-1.”.It was further observed by the Bench that any impact on the efficiency and increase in the cost of operations of the flights in the given scenario, when DIAL requires shifting of some operations for the purposes of renovations and expansion with a view to decongesting Terminal 1 in the interest of public safety and safety of flight operations, becomes irrelevant..The Court, while dismissing the petition, held that none of the issues raised by IndiGo fall within the domain of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India..“Facts and circumstances, by no means, even indicate that DIAL on its part acted unfairly or unreasonably.”.The Court, however, extended the deadline for shifting of operations from January 4 to February 15 of next year..Read Judgment: