Shaji K.G. Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY,THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 22423 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. M.P.BALAN,AGED62YEARS, S/O. KANARAN, ARCHANA HOUSE, IRUTHIYAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 004.

2. RAVEENDRAN, AGED52YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, KIZHAMEKKA KILIYANAKKANDI HOUSE, VILAYATTOOR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEPPAYYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 524.

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEPPAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 524.

4. T.M.C. MOIDEEN,S/O. MOOSA, THENGULLAMALAYIL, KEEZHPAYUR, POST MEPPAYUR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 524.

5. ZIRAJ,S/O. HASSAN, KELLAROTH, KEEZHPAYUR, POST MEPPAYUR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 524.

6. PRAJEESH,S/O. DAMODARAN, MEETHALE MANIKKOTH, KEEZHPAYUR,POST MEPPAYUR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 524. R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 22423 of 2013 (C) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE IST AND2D PETITIONERS DATED1405/2011. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OBTAINED BY THE IST PETITIONER FROM MEPPAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED0907/2013. EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE OBTAINED BY THE IST PETITIONER FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED3003/2013. EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OBTAINED BY THE IST PETITIONER FROM THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED1302/2013. EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OBTAINED BY THE IST PETITIONER FROM THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE, ERNAKULAM DATED2201/2013. EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED1608/2013 FOR THE PURCHASE OF EXPLOSIVE AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSPORTING THE EXPLOSIVE TO THE SITE. EXHIBIT-P7- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P(C) 19037 OF2012DATED2809/2012. EXHIBIT-P8- TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 271 OF2012OF MEPPAYUR POLICE STATION DATED2711/2012. EXHIBIT-P9- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT DATED2008/2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED122/2013 MADE BY THE PARISTHITHI SAMREKSHANA SAMITHY, CHERUVANNOOR PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE AND CONSEQUENT ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT-R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.M.JOSEPH & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

-------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22423 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2013. JUDGMENT

K.M.Joseph, J.

Prayers in the writ petition are as follows: "(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits.P1 to P3; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to cancel the flight in the gulf sectors, Middle east and other countries of passengers of NRI after issuing tickets and collecting fares; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to resume and re-schedule the flights which are going to be cancelled from forthwith and if any hindrance for this direct the respondent to make necessary arrangements to provide alternate transport system; (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent and their authorities not to interfere with the managerial administrative or operational aspects of scheduling 2 of flights and its operation by the 1st and 2nd respondents and their officers;" 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

1. t petitioner is an organization mainly formed for meeting the problems faced by the non-resident Indians/returnees, during their journeys. The 2nd petitioner is its Vice Chairman. She is also a frequent traveler from her native place to Sharjah. The passengers at different classes such as business man, housewife, students, etc. are facing severe hardships because of the immediate cancellation of charted flights by the respondent without any prior notification even after accepting bookings on particular dates. The action of the respondent in cancelling the flights is to favour some private airlines and also to favour some politicians for their political satisfaction. Now also there are certain flights charted to Arab countries and Middle East are going to be cancelled by the respondent and such practice is creating doubts among the passengers regarding the reliability of the Indian Airlines and Air India and moreover due to such practice, the other airlines are taking advantage of the situation by hiking the fares incidentally. Hence the writ petition seeking intervention in the matter.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. A statement is filed by respondents 1 and 2 wherein, apart from denying the locus standi of the 1st petitioner, it is inter alia stated as follows: M/s.Air India Limited, the 1st respondent herein is a Government of India undertaking and has been providing air transport services to the public at the domestic and international sectors. Cancellation of flights, if at all occurs is due 3 to the reasons beyond the control of respondents 1 and 2, the passengers are advised of flight cancellation as soon as information in this regard is received and in accordance with the passengers preference/visa expiry date, etc. the tickets are rebooked, rerouted, provided with surface transportation and hotel accommodation without any additional charge. Passengers also have the alternative to get full refund of the fare. Air India Express Limited is operating 50 flights from Calicut, 17 flights from Thiruvananthapuram and 28 flights from Cochin to Middle East every week. However, during the period from 17th to 28th September due to the reasons beyond the control of the management of Air India Express, 11 flights, 4 from Calicut, 6 from Thiruvananthapuram and 1 from Cochin had to be cancelled. On cancellation of flights the passengers were given alternative flights to their destinations as per their original booking including hotel accommodation and surface transportation or rebooking the tickets for another date without any additional charge or full refund. The passengers accepted these options and availed the facilities and no individual passenger raised complaint in this regard. All the flights that were cancelled during the above period have been reinstated and operated with effect from 29.09.2012. Air India Limited is operating two flights per week to Riyad with routing Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram/Riyad. Here also, due to the cancellation these passengers are given alternatives over Mumbai and Delhi to meet the original bookings. Additionally alternative bookings and full refund was also offered. The passengers availed these options and no passenger has been affected or raised any complaint against the alternative arrangements made. 4 5. We passed the following interim order dated 01.10.2012: "When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the Air India has resumed all the flights from 29/09/2012. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 should bring statement on record by 05/10/2012. Call on 05/10/2012." 6. When this matter came up today, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that citing technical reasons flights are cancelled frequently and there is political interference. Learned counsel for the petitioners draw our attention to "Ground C" which reads as follows: The passengers of non-resident Indians especially in the gulf countries have booked their tickets from the 1st respondent much in advance for coming to their native place and to return. The period of festival or vacation or academic holidays were considered to be 'peak time' by Air India and collecting high ticket fares for their proposed travel. With a legitimate expectation these poor passengers have booked their ticket and waiting for their date of journey. If at all any technical snag or technical problem for operation of their flights, they have every right to postpone their schedule or cancel their flight. But technical problem is not a usual phenomena which may happen very rarely but not frequently. Cancellation of schedule of flights by Air India is now a days become a usual phenomena which is not based on any technical problem but due to administrative or political interference by the concerned Minister or respective 5 political leaders. The cancellation of flights without prior intimation and due to the aforesaid reasons, the passengers are put to all sort of difficulties by the authorities of respondents 1 and 2 and their attitude is in no way justifiable and which is nothing but a gross human rights violation.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that cancellation of flights happened due to technical reasons and it does not happen frequently and there is no political interference. We take note of the said submission and close the writ petition. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks