- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 50359 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. AGNI AERO SPORTS ADVENTURE ACADEMY (P) LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, JAKKUR AERODROME, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-64, REPRESENTED BY CAPT ARVIND SHARMA, 2. CAPT.ARVIND SHARMA S/O SHRI.J.P.SHARMA, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 99/A 17TH B MAIN ROAD, BLOCK-5, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CAPT. ARVIND SHARMA., PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 3. MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIIATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.14 15:26:01 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 4. CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G 5 & 6, SECTOR,-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110 075. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE. 6. DIRECTOR GOVERNMENT FLYING TRAINING SCHOOL, (OFFICER IN CHARGE) JAKKUR AERODROME, BANGALORE-560 064. 7. ABHAY ASHVIN S/O ASHVIN NARAYAN AGED 18 YEARS R/AT #76, 4TH MAIN, HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT, SULTANPALYA, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. 8. SONIA MOHAN SINGH D/O MOHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ADDRESS: #144, TANISHA ENCLAVE, 5TH CROSS, M.E.I LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 073. 9. N.TEJASHWIN S/O K.B.NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT #47/7, SAI NIVASA, KADIRANNAPALYA, INDRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038. 10. AVINASH TUMALA S/O VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT #1651/2, 8TH MAIN, 20TH CROSS, B-BLOCK, SAHAKARNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 11. KAVYA R D/O RAVI KUMAR.V.R AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT #11, IRRULLAPPASWAMY KOVIL STREET, PALANGANATHAM, MADURAI-625 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR., SPL GA FOR R1, R5 & R6; SRI. MADANAN PILLAI.R., CGSC FOR R2-R3; SRI. BIDAN CHANDRA & SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S., ADVOCATES FOR R4; SRI. B.B. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R-1 TO TAKE STEPS TO DEMOLISH THE PORTION OF THE EH 45 METERS ON EITHER SIDE FROM THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE OF THE JAKKUR AERODROME RUNWAY, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS IN ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to take steps to demolish the portion of the EH 45 meters on the either side of the extended centerline of the Jakkur aerodrome runway, in compliance with the specifications in Annexure-A. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to modify the plan in so far it relates to EH running in front of the runway of Jakkur aerodrome, keeping in mind the approach funnel zone of Jakkur aerodrome in accordance with the specifications mentioned in Annexure-A dated 30th June 2008. ii(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 07.06.2014 marked as Annexure-V issued by R6. iii. To Issue any other writ or order or directions, the Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case. iv. To award the costs. 2. The petitioner No.1 claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, being a pioneer in India in aerosports, etc. Petitioner No.2 claims to be a pilot licensed in the year 1988 trained at the Government Flying Training School. 3. What is challenged is the implementation of the elevated expressway from Hebbal to the Bangalore International Airport now the Kempegowda International Airport, on the ground that the construction of the elevated expressway is contrary - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 to the notification issued under Section 9(A) of the Aircraft Act 1934. The elevated expressway constructed by the National Airways Authority of India comes within the flight path of the Jakkur Aerodrome which is a flying training school operated by the State of Karnataka. 4. The submission made is that on account of the elevated expressway being established, the flights cannot take off and land at the Jakkur Aerodrome and as such necessary orders would have to be passed to demolish the expressway. 5. The submission made by Sri. Arvind Sharma., the party-in-person is that; 5.1. No permission has been taken from the concerned Authorities as required under Section 9 (A) of the Aircrafts Act, 1934 in terms of the notification dated 30.06.2008 issued thereunder and as such his submission is that without such permission, no plan could have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 been approved by the State Government or implemented by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). 5.2. His further submission is that the State Government has not taken any action in relation thereto and in fact the State Government has colluded with the NHAI for the establishment of the elevated expressway thereby making the Jakkur Aerodrome virtually defunct. 5.3. In this regard, various references have been made which may not be relevant to be considered in view of the submission made on behalf of the NHAI. 6. Sri.Bidan Chandra., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-NHAI would submit that; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 6.1. Though in the notification issued on 30.06.2008, the Jakkur Aerodrome was found mentioned in Part-4 of Annexure-7 at SL No.32, the said Aerodrome has been deleted from the annexure in terms of the notification issued on 14.01.2010 which supersedes the notification dated 30.01.2008. Thus, he submits that in view of the superseding notification dated 14.1.2010, there was no requirement of the NHAI to seek for any permission or approval from anyone. 6.2. The preliminary notification under Section 3A though had been published on 19.12.2009, the final notification was published on 30.07.2010 after the superseding notification dated 14.01.2010 had been published and once the notification of the year 2008 was superseded by the notification of the year 2010, the final notification had been issued on 30.07.2010 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 the construction of the elevated expressway having been taken up subsequent thereto. 6.3. As on the date on which the construction was taken up, there being no requirement for obtaining no objection, the question of any violation having been committed by NHAI would not arise. 6.4. His submission is also that the expressway was completed on 01.01.2014 and it is thereafter that vide notification dated 30.09.2015 the Jakkur Aerodrome was again included in Schedule-4, Part-2 of the said notification with Jakkur Aerodrome being found mentioned at Sl.No.55 thereof. 6.5. Thus, he submits that from 14.01.2010 till 30.09.2015, there was no requirement for obtaining any permission or no objection by the NHAI and as such no fault could be found in relation thereto. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 6.6. Insofar as mitigating factors and ameliorative measures are concerned, he submits that NHAI was ready to get similar land acquired for the Jakkur Aerodrome and provide the same where the activities could have been shifted. The Aerodrome not having accepted the said proposal, the same could not be done. On enquiry as to whether the NHAI is still willing to do so, he submits that he has no instruction as of now. 6.7. On further enquiry as to what is the status of the elevated expressway post the notification dated 30.09.2015, he submits that the action taken by the NHAI in construction of the elevated expressway cannot be faulted with. If at all any action is taken as regard to construction allegedly to be in violation of and/or constituting an obstruction to the operation of the Jakkur Aerodrome, it would be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 for the concerned authority to take action which the NHAI would defend. 6.8. As such he submits that the relief which have been sought for premised on the fact that a No Objection Certificate was required to be taken by NHAI before construction of the elevated expressway, the same not being required, the construction cannot be faulted with and as such the above petition is required to be dismissed. 6.9. Apart therefrom he makes the submission as regard the locus of the petitioner, which I am of the considered opinion may not be required to be adverted to in view of the earlier submission made by Sri.Bidan Chandra. 7. In reply, Sri. Aravind Sharma., the party-in-person refers to Rule 3 of the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees etc.,) Rules 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1994”) and submits that now that there is a - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 notification of the year 2015 which has been issued which includes Jakkur Aerodrome, necessary action would have to be taken in terms of the said Rules of 1994. However, till date no such action has been taken by the concerned authorities. 8. Learned AGA submits that the matter is between the NHAI and the petitioner insofar as the State is concerned, the State has taken all steps which are necessary in accordance with law. 9. Heard Sri.Arvind Sharma., party-in-person, Sri.A.Ravishankar., Special Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 5 and 6, Sri.Madanan Pillai.R., learned CGSC appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, Sri.Bidan Chandra., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri.B.B.Patil., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 to 11. Perused papers. 10. The entire petition is premised on the fact that the No Objection Certificate which is required to be - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 obtained had not been obtained by the NHAI. In this regard, reference had been made to the notification issued under Section 9(A) of the Aircrafts Act, 1934 on 30.06.2008, where the name of the Jakkur Aerodrome had been included in Part-4 of Annexure- 7 at SL No.32. 11. This notification of 30.06.2008 came to be superseded by notification dated 14.01.2010, where under the name of Jakkur Aerodrome had been deleted. Surprisingly, in the subsequent notification issued on 30.09.2015, the name of Jakkur Aerodrome came to be included in Schedule-4, Part- 2 of the said notification at SL No.55. 12. Thus, it is from 14.01.2010 to 30.09.2015 that the name of Jakkur Aerodrome had been deleted from the notification issued under Section 9(A) of the Aircrafts Act, 1934. In the meanwhile, the final notification under Section 3D was issued on - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 30.01.2010 construction was taken up and completed by 01.01.2014. 13. The entire action by NHAI as regards issuance of the final notification and completion of the construction occurred during this period of 14.01.2010 to 30.09.2015. It may also not be out of context to take into account that the plan insofar as the elevated expressway had been cleared by the State Government on 15.01.2009. 14. The sequence of events has given rise to this particular situation where though initially the NHAI was required to take permission/no objection on account of the notification of 14.01.2010 Jakkur Aerodrome being deleted, there was no requirement to take the permission/no objection. But however, with the Aerodrome again being included in notification under Section 9(A) of the Aircrafts Act, 1934 by notification dated 30.09.2015, the said - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 notification had been made applicable to the Jakkur Aerodrome. 15. Thus, once the notification had been issued on 30.09.2015, any construction which had been put up would constitute an obstruction requiring necessary action to be taken in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 9(A) of the Aircrafts Act 1934. 16. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, since there was no requirement to obtain any no objection from any Authority during the intervening period of 14.01.2010 to 30.09.2015, the submission made by the petitioners would be of no avail that there is violation by the NHAI of the mandatory requirement. 17. However, insofar as the second submission made by the petitioner as regards the construction now being in violation of the notification dated 30.09.2015 is concerned, it is for the appropriate authorities to - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5037 WP No. 50359 of 2013 consider the same and take necessary action in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. 18. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The concerned authorities are directed to verify and if found fit to take necessary action under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 and if so deemed fit to follow the principle of natural justice by issuance of show-cause notice to the NHAI affording an option to the NHAI to respond to the same, provide an opportunity of hearing to the said NHAI and thereafter take necessary action. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5