No illegality in DIAL's order shifting 3 airlines to T-2: HC

The Delhi High Court today ruled that there was no illegality in the decision of airport operator DIAL to partially shift the operations of private carriers Indigo, GoAir and Spicejet from Terminal-1 (T-1) to Terminal-2 (T-2) at the IGI Airport here.
Justice A K Chawla dismissed the petition of the airlines, saying the facts by no means indicated that DIAL acted unfairly or unreasonably.
"The impugned decision of DIAL cannot be said to be unilateral for the simple reason that it took this decision, on account of any of the airlines, including IndiGo, failing to respond to its repeated requests and the proposals, inasmuch as, the operations of the airport is the prime responsibility of DIAL, which, it seeks to discharge," the court said.

However, it also extended till February 15 the deadline provided to IndiGo and Spicejet to shift their part operations. The deadline was going to expire on January 4, 2018.
The court further said if IndiGo and Spicejet make a request for shifting of operations of their flights other than the sectors Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru, at par with the traffic of such sectors within seven days from today, it shall be open for DIAL to consider it and dispose of within a week.
The high court had on December 4 reserved its verdict on low-cost carrier IndiGo's plea against the decision of the Delhi International Airport Ltd. (DIAL) to partially shift its operations along with that of two other airlines, SpiceJet and GoAir, from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2.

In its plea, the airline challenged DIAL's communication of October 21, asking the three carriers to shift their flights to and from Delhi to Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru, to T-2 from January 4, 2018.

All other flights of the airlines shall continue to operate from T-1, the airport operator had said.
The court noted that DIAL, in January this year, had given an opportunity to all the three airlines operating from Terminal-1 to reach a consensus for operations of their flights or even propose the flights that may be relocated from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, as a temporary measure.
It said that the airlines failed either way, while, DIAL continued to pursue, so that the process of renovations and expansion of Terminal-1 could be undertaken, at the earliest.

The court said it was a matter of record that in the absence of any progress, the Ministry of Civil Aviation took serious note of the situation and by June 14 order, it expressed its anguish for the severe capacity constraints at Terminal-1 on account of the increased demand of the three low cost carriers.
It said that none of the issues sought to be agitated by IndiGo can be said to be in the larger public interest.
IndiGo had challenged DIAL's decision on the ground that partial shifting of its operations would inconvenience passengers, especially those on hopping flights emanating or ending at those sectors, as T-1 and T-2 are not connected.

Defending its decision, the DIAL said that T-1 had already exceeded its capacity and if airline operations were not shifted partially, it would lead to overcrowding of the airport.
It also contended that in case of a fire or a terror threat, an overcrowded airport would have serious consequences for which the DIAL alone would be answerable.
IndiGo was opposed to the shifting of its operations, saying if the decision of the DIAL was allowed, the airline would be spread across T-1, T-2 and T-3.
The central government had supported DIAL's move and contended that IndiGo's plea was not maintainable.