Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Sri Dineysh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Anand Dwivedi for the Union of India.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 29.1.2015, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, which according to the petitioner is an order in appeal in the purported exercise of powers of Rule 3-B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
The background in which the aforesaid appeal is stated to have been filed is an accident of an Aircraft maintained by the Government of U.P. of which the petitioner was admittedly the pilot. It appears that the power to investigate an accident relating to an aircraft being flown is provided for under the Aircraft Act, 1934 read with the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The inquiry was conducted with regard to an accident dated 22.9.2012. A report was submitted in this regard, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
The petitioner thereafter appears to have filed the so called appeal under Section 3-B of the 1937 Rules. Since the same was stated to be pending disposal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10495 of 2014 that was disposed of on 7.10.2014 by the following order :-
"Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that statutory appeal filed by him on 03.06.2014, before the respondent no. 2, is pending for disposal.
Additional Solicitor General, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 fairly states that in case the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending the same shall be decided by the concerned authority expeditiously.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on 03.06.2014 in accordance with law by means of reasoned and speaking order after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of six weeks' from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 17.10.2014"
Since the order apparently did not appear to have been complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No.2768 of 2014 in which notices were issued on 18.12.2014. Consequently, the respondent-Government of India through the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, proceeded to pass orders on 29.1.2015, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, refusing to reopen the said inquiry relating to the accident and rejecting the said appeal filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel contends that it is the said order which is under challenge before this Court.
There are two issues which have to be examined for the purpose of entertaining this writ petition. Firstly, as to whether any such cause of action has arisen for the purpose of entertaining this writ petition at Lucknow and even otherwise as to whether such an appeal as stated by the petitioner was maintainable under Section 3-B of the 1937 Rules.
What we find from record is that the inquiry report which is being stated to be the order against which the appeal was filed emanated from Delhi and not only this the appellate order dated 29.1.2015 has been passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation at Delhi. Sri Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the aircraft had been flown between Lucknow and Delhi and therefore a part of the cause of action did arise at Lucknow for maintaining this writ petition.
We are unable to agree with the said proposition, inasmuch as, whatever inquiry in relation to the accident was held, was by an authority at Delhi and the impugned orders had been passed at Delhi. In such circumstances, no part of the cause of action was available to the petitioner to maintain this petition before the Lucknow Bench. The flight trajectory of the Aircraft between Delhi and Lucknow is not the cause of action. It is the investigation and enquiry at Delhi and its consequences about which the petitioner has a grievance.
Secondly, we have been unable to find any order of any competent authority which can be said to be appealable under Section 3-B of the 1937 Rules for the purpose of maintaining an appeal. It appears that the order dated 29.1.2015 was passed only on account of the directions issued by the High Court where the aforesaid facts were neither examined or dealt with or even canvassed by the learned counsel of either side by placing the statutory provisions.
Consequently, on both counts we find no reason to entertain this petition. Rejected.
Order Date :- 11.1.2016 Anand Sri./-