M/S Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for constructing a building to a height of 461 meters Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) in the Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur. The petitioner had obtained building plan approval from RIICO for a height of 30.78 meters, but later constructed a seven-story building with a height of 445.5 meters AMSL. The Airports Authority of India (AAI), through its Designated Officer, rejected the NOC application on October 16, 2023, stating that a building of 445.5 meters AMSL was already constructed, violating the maximum permissible top elevation. An appeal to the Appellate Committee of AAI was also rejected on October 11, 2024. The petitioner argued that shielding criteria should apply due to the proximity of Jhalana Hills, and that a similar building nearby had received approval for a higher elevation.

Held

The Court held that Clause 6.2 of the Aeronautical Study Guidelines (ADSAC 05 of 2020) is in derogation of GSR 751(E) and cannot be read in a manner inconsistent with the statutory rules. The Court found that GSR 751(E) does not impose a blanket restriction on conducting an Aeronautical Study solely due to the absence of an NOC or prior construction. In cases of inconsistency, the statutory rules (GSR 751(E)) would prevail. The Court also found prima facie merit in the petitioner's contention that denying them a NOC, while a nearby structure received approval for a similar or higher elevation after an Aeronautical Study, would result in discrimination and violation of Article 14. The Court directed that an Aeronautical Study be conducted at the petitioner's expense, and the Appellate Committee should consider its findings, along with its orders for other structures in the vicinity, to pass a fresh order determining the maximum permissible height for the petitioner's structure. The impugned order of the Appellate Committee denying the Aeronautical Study was set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 6.2 of the Aeronautical Study Guidelines (Aerodrome Safeguarding Circular (ADSAC) 05 of 2020) is ultra vires to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015 (GSR 751(E)) and thus unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional? The petitioner argued that Clause 6.2, which prohibits consideration of an appeal if a building is already constructed above the permitted top elevation or identified as an obstacle, is inconsistent with GSR 751(E), which does not impose such a blanket restriction on conducting an Aeronautical Study. The petitioner contended that GSR 751(E) should prevail in case of inconsistency. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this issue in the judgment. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for raising the building to the height of 461 meters AMSL, considering the aeronautical study and precedents in the vicinity? The petitioner argued that denying them a NOC while granting it to a nearby building with a similar or higher approved elevation would amount to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents' arguments on this issue were not explicitly detailed in the judgment, but their rejection of the NOC implies they did not consider the petitioner entitled to it.