Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010201142025 2026:GAU-AS:12958 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5241/2025 BIKROM SINGHA LAHKAR S/O- LATE KHAGEN SINGHA LAHKAR, R/O- GAUHATI UNIVERSITY BY PASS ROAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 17, P.O- GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, P.S- JALUKBARI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781015 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHRS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, NEW DELHI. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT SAFDARJANG NEW DELHI 3:THE DIRECTOR OF AIRWORTHINESS O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION EASTERN REGION NSCBI AIRPORT KOLKATA-700052 WEST BENGAL 4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AIRWORTHINESS O/O THE DGCA LGBI AIRPORT GUWAHATI 5:VIDYABHARATI EDUCATIONAL TRUST (GANDHI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Page No.# 2/22 SRI CHANDRA DHWAJ PANDA GUNUPUR GOBRIGUDA P.O. KHARLING ODISHA PIN-765022 6:CHANDRA DHWAJ PANDA ACCOUNTABLE MANAGER COLLEGE OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING GANDHI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY GUNUPUR GOBRIGUDA P.O. KHARLING ODISHA PIN-76502 Advocate for the Petitioner : PETITIONER IN PERSON, MS. I U SAIKIA,MS D MAHANTA,MS. B SAIKIA,MR N K SARMA,MR H K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR A N SARMAH(R-5,6),MR M M ZAMAN(R-5,6),MR. S CHAMARIA(R-5,6),MS. K PHUKAN (C.G.C.) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 27/08/2026 Heard Mr. H K Das, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M K Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K Phukan, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs: i) Setting aside of the Communication dated 07-08-2025 (Annexure-22 Page No.# 3/22 Page: 91), ii) Setting aside of the Renewal dated 13-08-2025 (Annexure- 18, Page:86), iii) Setting aside of the Certificate dated 13-08-2025 (Annexure- 19, Page:87), iv) Setting aside of the Order dated 13-08-2025 (Annexure- 20, Page: 88) and for a direction upon the respondent No. 3, to accept the name of the petitioner as the Accountable Manager, College of Aeronautical Engineering, Guwahati and accordingly, to renew the validity of the approval granted to the College of Aeronautical Engineering, Guwahati by the DGCA at Guwahati. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner is the founder and proprietor of the College of Aeronautical Engineering, Borjhar, Guwahati. The said College was established in the year 2009 and was offering the course in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME), approved by the Director General of Civil Aviation and also a course leading to the award of a degree of Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.), affiliated to the Gauhati University. It is further projected in the writ petition that the Director General of Civil Aviation, on 08.06.2009, under Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) E Part-VIII, granted approval to the said college for offering the course of Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME). The said approval so granted, was being extended from time to time. Thereafter, vide an approval dated 25.06.2021, the DGCA had upgraded the approval already granted to the petitioner College under CAR 147, now permitting the College to offer a course in Aircraft Page No.# 4/22 Maintenance Engineering (AME), in terms of the specification made, therein. It is further projected by the petitioner that in terms of the norms coming into force, the proprietor being required to nominate a person as the Accountable Manager of the College, the petitioner had nominated himself as the Accountable Manager of the College of Aeronautical Engineering and such nomination was approved by the DGCA authorities. It is then projected that the petitioner in the year 2024, on account of his poor health was not in a position to operate the said College, more particularly, the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) course offered, therein and accordingly, was on a lookout for an eligible person for being appointed as the Accountable Manager of the said College. The petitioner projects that the respondent No. 6, being found by him to be suitable, he proceeded to select the respondent No. 6, who was the Secretary of the respondent No. 5 Trust, as the new Accountable Manager of the said College. Accordingly, the petitioner proceeded vide a communication dated 28.02.2024, to appoint the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the said College, subject to acceptance by the DGCA. It is projected that on an approach being made to the authorities of the DGCA, for approval of appointment of the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the said college, the authorities having required the petitioner to execute a Deed of Agreement in the matter, the petitioner on 02.03.2024, proceeded to execute a Deed of Agreement with the respondent No. 5 Trust, represented by the respondent No. 6. The petitioner also executed a Deed of Declaration, declaring the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the Accountable Manager of the said college. The said documents being so Page No.# 5/22 submitted before the DGCA authorities, the authorities of DGCA, vide communication dated 01.04.2024, conveyed the acceptance of the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the said college. Thereafter, it is projected that the petitioner on finding that the respondent No. 6, was not operating the College in the manner required and on learning that the respondent No. 6, in connivance with the authorities of DGCA, was contemplating to shift the campus of the said college from Borjhar, Guwahati to Odisha, the petitioner vide communication dated 29.04.2025, proceeded to remove the respondent No. 6 from the post of Accountable Manager. The said aspect of the matter was also intimated to the authorities of the DGCA. The petitioner projects that after repeated approaches being made by the petitioner, the authorities of the DGCA, vide a communication dated 24.07.2025, proceeded to convey the acceptance of the petitioner as the Accountable Manager of the said college. The petitioner, thereafter, projects that on coming to learn from reliable sources that there was a move to cancel the acceptance of the petitioner as the Accountable Manager of the said College, conveyed vide the communication dated 24.07.2025, and also of shifting of the College from Assam to Odisha, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4650/2025. The said writ petition is projected to have been moved on 13.08.2025 and this Court had fixed the matter on 22.08.2025. However, on 13.08.2025, the DGCA authorities had renewed the approval/licence of the said College in the name of the respondent No. 5 Trust. The address of the College was also changed to that of the address of the respondent No. 5 Trust, in Odisha, vide an Page No.# 6/22 approval dated 13.08.2025. Further, the DGCA authorities proceeded to accept the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the said College. The said developments taking place, the petitioner proceeded to withdraw the said writ petition, being WP(C) No. 4650/2025, with liberty and accordingly, basing on the liberty granted by this Court, the present writ petition has been instituted. 4. Mr. H K Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, had nominated himself as the Accountable Manager, when such a requirement was so introduced by the DGCA authorities for operation of the College of Aeronautical Engineering. 4.1 It is submitted by Mr. Das, that on account of the poor health of the petitioner, he had appointed the respondent No. 6 as the Accountable Manager vide a communication dated 28.02.2024. He also submits that prior to the appointment of the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager, a discussion was already underway with the respondent No. 5 Trust, for operating the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering, AME part of the said College of Aeronautical Engineering. Accordingly, it is submitted that for the purpose of operating the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering part of the said College, the approval granted in this connection by the DGCA authorities came to be handed over to the respondent No. 5 Trust and in this connection, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 Trust had executed a Deed of Declaration/ Acknowledgment. 4.2 It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that what was delegated by the petitioner was only the power to operate the College in question, more particularly, the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering course offered, therein, and not the ownership of the College. Page No.# 7/22 4.3 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only with the said intention that the respondent No. 6, who was the Secretary of the respondent No. 5 Trust was appointed as the Accountable Manager of the said College. Mr. Das, submits that an Accountable Manager can only be appointed/nominated by the proprietor of the Institution, wherein, the course is being offered. Accordingly, he submits that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 made by the petitioner was so made by him in his capacity as the proprietor of the College of Aeronautical Engineering. 4.4 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it being subsequently found that the respondent No. 6, was not performing his duties and responsibilities as an Accountable Manager, in terms of the CAR requirements, the petitioner vide communication dated 29.04.2025, proceeded to remove him from the post of Accountable Manager and the said aspect was also communicated to the DGCA authorities. 4.5 It is projected by Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the nomination made by the petitioner of himself as the Accountable Manager, after removal of the respondent No. 6, was accepted by the authorities of the DGCA, vide a communication dated 24.07.2025. 4.6 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is in the above background that the orders, impugned in the present writ petition issued by the authorities of the DGCA is to be so considered by this Court. Mr. Das submits that a perusal of the impugned orders would go to reveal that the DGCA authorities, without there being any communication made by the petitioner expressly declaring, therein, that the ownership of the College was transferred in favour of the respondent No. 5 Trust and the situs of the College Page No.# 8/22 was also permitted to be changed from Assam to Odisha, the authorities of DGCA were not empowered to renew the licence of the College, in the name of the respondent No. 5 and also to change the address of the College to that of the address of the respondent No. 5 Trust. 4.7 Mr. Das, further submits that the DGCA authorities having accepted the nomination made by the petitioner of himself as the Accountable Manager, after removal of the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the College, the status of the petitioner to be the proprietor of the College by the DGCA authorities stood established and accordingly, the petitioner being recognized as the proprietor of the said College, the DGCA authorities could not have proceeded to accept the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager, basing on a nomination made in this connection by any other person/authority than the petitioner, herein. 4.8 By referring to the agreement executed in the matter on 02.03.2024, Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that therein, the change of location of the said College was permissible to be so done, basing on a request made by the Accountable Manager. He submits that the respondent No. 6, having been removed from the post of Accountable Manager, the acceptance of such request for change of the location of the College by the authorities of DGCA, was in clear excess of the jurisdiction vested in them. Accordingly, Mr. Das submits that all orders passed by the DGCA authorities after the respondent No. 6, was removed by the petitioner as the Accountable Manager of the College in question, stood vitiated and the said orders would mandate an interference by this Court. 4.9 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Page No.# 9/22 affidavit-in-reply filed in the matter, has submitted that in the Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment, executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 Trust, it was stipulated that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) by way of a cheque, bearing No. 045007 dated 29.12.2023. 4.10 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the bank account statements of the petitioner as well as the certificates issued by his banker, has submitted that the amount involved in the said cheque was never deposited in the account of the petitioner and accordingly, the said Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment with regard to the handing over of the licence issued by the DGCA authorities for operating the College to the respondent No. 5 Trust, was rendered void. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that the said agreement in absence of the consideration thereof, being transferred to the petitioner, would not mandate implementation. 4.11 Mr. Das, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 for the proposition that even in contractual disputes, if the action of the public authority assailed in a writ petition, is demonstrated to be illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, this Court would have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the same as well as to interfere with such illegal orders. 4.12 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that although, an alternative remedy of approaching the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, Page No.# 10/22 is available to the petitioner, the petitioner in the present writ petition having demonstrated that the impugned orders were passed by the DGCA authorities in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, the said orders not being justified, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can adjudicate upon the issue raised and also pass necessary directions, thereon. 4.13 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea of the petitioner to the effect that the action of the authorities of the DGCA in issuing the impugned orders not being found to be based on any material, justifying the issuance of the said orders, only on the ground that there is a contractual dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, the present writ petition would not be mandated to be dismissed at the threshold itself. 4.14 Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, with regard to his contention that the consideration involved in the Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment dated 02.03.2024, having not been paid to the petitioner, the said agreement was rendered void, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Seema Malhotra and Others, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 151. 5. Ms. K Phukan, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has submitted that the petitioner had applied for grant of approval in favour of the appointment made by him of the respondent No. 6 as the Accountable Manager of the College in question. It is projected that along with such application, a Deed of Declaration executed by the petitioner on 02.03.2024 was also annexed. The ground assigned by the petitioner in the said Deed was that he Page No.# 11/22 was not in a position to run the institution on account of his health condition. 5.1 Ms. Phukan, learned CGC further submits that in terms of the Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment, it is found that the petitioner after the execution of the said deed, shall have no claim whatsoever, on the business involved and he shall not be liable/responsible for the affairs of the College of Aeronautical Engineering, more particularly, with regard to the course of Aircraft Maintenance Engineering offered, therein. 5.2 Ms. Phukan, learned CGC further submits that the petitioner in the said Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment dated 02.03.2024, had admitted and acknowledged with regard to the sufficiency of the consideration price as well as the receipt, thereof. 5.3 Ms. Phukan, learned CGC submits that in view of the above position, the authorities of the DGCA, after having approved the nomination made by the petitioner of himself as the Accountable Manager, had on being apprised of the actual background involved in the matter, including the execution of the Deed of Agreement/Declaration, proceeded to issue the impugned orders. She submits that the orders issued by the DGCA authorities, impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioner, were all so issued basing on the declarations made by the petitioner himself. Accordingly, she submits that the impugned orders issued by the authorities of the DGCA, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Mr. S Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, at the outset, has submitted that the present writ petition, in view of the disputes raised therein, based on the contract already entered into between the Page No.# 12/22 petitioner and the respondent No. 5, would not be maintainable before this Court. 6.1. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, by referring to the Deed of Declaration/ Acknowledgment dated 02.03.2024, submits that vide the same, the control of the College of Aeronautical Engineering was transferred to the respondent No. 5 Trust, along with the approval for offering the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) course therein, issued by the DGCA authorities. He submits that the said transfer was based on a consideration agreed and received by the petitioner in the matter. 6.2 Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, by referring to the provisions of Clause-2 of the said Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment, submits that the petitioner, therein, had declared that he shall have no claim whatsoever, with regard to the business of the said College w.e.f. the date of complete execution of the agreement and he would now not be in any way liable/responsible for the affairs of the College of Aeronautical Engineering, AME Branch. 6.3 Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, further submits that in terms of Clause-3 of the said agreement, the petitioner undertook to hand over all his powers and privileges with regard to the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) course offered in the College to the respondent No. 5. Mr. Chamaria, by referring to Clause-5 of the said Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment has submitted that it was agreed upon by and between the parties in the said agreement that the Accountable Manager appointed by the petitioner, who would be a personnel of the respondent No. 5 Trust and he shall apply before the DGCA authorities for change of location of Page No.# 13/22 the College from Guwahati to Gunupur in Odisha. 6.4 Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, further submits that in the said Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment, it was also agreed that the petitioner would hand over the approval granted by the DGCA authorities to the respondent No. 5 Trust and such hand over was undertaken to be irrevocable in future by the petitioner, herein. 6.5 Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, submits that the petitioner was paid the consideration amount, as reflected in the said agreement and accordingly, the petitioner had not raised any grievance with regard to the same. Mr. Chamaria, submits that it is only by way of filing a reply in the matter that the petitioner had raised a contention to the effect that the cheque issued for the consideration amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) was not credited to the account of the petitioner. He submits that the cheque issued, had a validity period of 3 (three) months and thereafter, it is not found that the petitioner had taken any steps for raising any grievance in this connection, in accordance with the procedure mandated. 6.6 Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, submits that the respondent No. 5 can demonstrate from the records that the petitioner and the persons nominated by him, were transferred money much more than that was so disclosed in the said agreement. He submits that in the event, a civil proceeding is instituted in the matter by the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 would be in a position to adduce evidence to counter the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.7 Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, has Page No.# 14/22 submitted that although, the orders, impugned in the present writ petition, were so issued by the public authorities, the basis for issuing the said orders is the agreements entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. Accordingly, in the event, the petitioner alleges that there was a violation of the contract entered into by him with the respondent No. 5 and/or wants to project the definite terms of the contract agreement in a different light, the same would be permissible to be so done before a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction by adducing due evidences, thereon. He submits that the said agreements executed by the petitioner have not been cancelled till this very date. 6.8 In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 & 6, has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (i) State of Bihar & Others Vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 216; (ii) ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553; (iii) Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728; and (iv) M/S Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The rival contentions of the parties to the proceeding on the factual Page No.# 15/22 matrix involved in the present writ petition, has been considered, along with the decisions relied upon. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner was the proprietor of the College of Aeronautical Engineering and he subsequently, had executed an agreement in the form of a Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment on 02.03.2024 with the respondent No. 5 Trust, which was represented by the respondent No. 6. The recital made in the said agreement would go to reveal that the petitioner had agreed to hand over the approval granted by the DGCA authorities on 25.06.2021, in respect of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering course to the respondent No. 5 at an initial consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) only. The terms and conditions of the said agreement, being relevant for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition, the same is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference; “1. That In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement and in consideration of the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only), which the Second Party has made to the First Party by cheque bearing No. 045007 dated 29/12/2023, State Bank of India, Gunupur Branch, Odisha. The second party with respect to payment of consideration against the handing over of Approval/license for running the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME). College, the First Party hereby admits and acknowledges the sufficiency of the consideration price. 2. That the Second Party on the strength of this deed may create/establish GIET U College of Aeronautical Engineering with a new Accountable Manager to be nominated by the First Party and the First Party shall have no claim whatsoever on the said business with effect from complete execution and henceforth the First Party is no way liable/responsible for the affairs in connection with College of Aeronautical Engineering, AME Branch. Page No.# 16/22 3. That the First Party shall handover all of his powers and privileges on Aircraft Maintenance Engineering [AME] of College of Aeronautical Engineering to the Second Party. 3. That the First Party will nominate new Accountable Manager and designated post holder with relevant forms as applicable. 5. That on behalf of the both parties, the new Accountable Manager of GIET U shall apply to the DGCA for change of location from Guwahati to GIET U College of Aeronautical Engineering, Gunupur. 6. That during the course of new Accountable Manager for the change of location, the First Party shall support the new Accountable Manager and Second Party. …………. ………….. 9. The said First Party having full right to hand over the said approval granted by the DGCA hereby handed over to the said Second Party and will not at any time hereafter revoke, annul and make void the aforesaid handing over hereby given to the said Second Party, or do or execute or knowingly or willingly suffer any act, deed or thing, whereby the said Second Party may be prevented from having and receiving the said approval or any part thereof, to and for his own use and beneft or by means whereof the said Secondary Party shall be injured in the said business. “ 10. A perusal of the said terms and conditions would go to reveal that the petitioner in lieu of a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs), had handed over the approval/licence for running the Aircraft Maintenance Page No.# 17/22 Engineering course in the said College to the respondent No. 5, herein. The said agreement further provides that on the strength of the said agreement, the respondent No. 5 would create GIET U College of Aeronautical Engineering, and the petitioner shall have no claim, whatsoever, on the said business w.e.f. the date of execution of the said agreement and further that the petitioner shall be in no way liable/responsible for the affairs in connection with the College of Aeronautical Engineering, AME Branch. The said agreement also empowers the respondent No. 6, to apply before the DGCA authorities for change of location of the College from Guwahati to Gunupur in Odisha. What is further most relevant is that in Clause-9 of the said agreement, the petitioner had handed over the licence/approval granted by the DGCA to the respondent No. 5, with a further stipulation that such handing over shall thereafter, never be revoked, annulled and/or cancelled. 11. A perusal of the said terms and conditions of the said agreement would go to reveal that the petitioner in addition to handing over the approval to the respondent No. 5, had also transferred his proprietorship rights in the College of Aeronautical Engineering, in connection with the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering (AME) course offered, therein. The transfer of licence in view of the terms of the said agreement to the respondent No. 5, was permanent in nature. It is seen that after the execution of the said agreement and the appointment of the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the said Institution, the petitioner had not interfered with the activities of the said institution for a period of 1 (one) year. It is only after lapse of a period of around 1 (one) year, since the date of execution of the said agreement, that all of a sudden, the petitioner had proceeded to cancel the nomination made by him in favour of the respondent No. 6 and proceeded to remove the respondent No. 6, from the post Page No.# 18/22 of Accountable Manager. 12. This Court in the present proceedings is only adjudicating the impugned orders passed by the authorities of the DGCA. For appreciating the contentions made by the authorities of the DGCA towards issuing the impugned orders, this Court would observe that on the date when the petitioner had removed the respondent No. 6, as the Accountable Manager of the said college, the agreement executed by him on 02.03.2024 was not annulled and/or cancelled. The said agreement continued to remain in force and the approval for offering the said AME course in the said College, being already transferred to the respondent No. 5, it is not understood as to how without the said approval now not being in the possession of the petitioner, he can proceed to again project himself as the proprietor of the said college. 13. It is to be noted that in terms of the said agreement, the right to operate the said college was already vested with the respondent No. 5. Accordingly, the intermittent approval of the nomination made by the petitioner himself as the Accountable Manager issued by the DGCA authorities is found by this Court to have been so effected basing on the factual matrix of the matter not being disclosed to the DGCA authorities. The DGCA authorities, thereafter, on being apprised about the factual matrix holding the field in the matter, including the agreements executed by the petitioner, had proceeded to issue the impugned orders. 14. It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and extraordinary in character. Ordinarily, disputes of a purely contractual nature between two private parties, even where one of the contracting parties happens to be, or interacts with, a statutory or public authority, are not amenable to writ Page No.# 19/22 jurisdiction, unless the action complained of exhibits a clear element of arbitrariness, mala fides, or an exercise of power dehors the statute by the public authority itself. Undeniably, the DGCA is a statutory/regulatory authority discharging public functions under the Aircraft Act and the Rules framed, thereunder, including the grant, continuance, and withdrawal of approvals for training institutions and the acceptance of nominees as Accountable Managers. To that extent, its orders are not wholly immune from judicial review, and a writ would ordinarily lie to test whether such orders are vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or violation of principles of natural justice. The mere presence of a private contract in the background does not, by itself, oust the writ jurisdiction qua the statutory authority's own decision-making.” 15. Having noticed the contours of the power of this Court in adjudication of such matters, this Court would now examine the impugned orders passed by the DGCA authorities. This Court has already noticed, hereinabove, that the petitioner voluntarily had executed agreements with the respondent No. 5, for a consideration and vide the said agreements, he had divested himself of the rights in the operation of the said college, which he now seeks to reclaim by way of institution of the present writ petition. The petitioner in the said agreement had unilaterally undertaken that the approval of the DGCA authorities handed over to the respondent No. 5, shall not be revoked or annulled. The action on the part of the DGCA authorities in issuing the impugned orders is not found by this Court to be a suo moto exercise carried out by it dehors from the contractual matrix involved in the matter, more particularly, the agreements executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. Page No.# 20/22 16. This Court finds that the issuance of the impugned orders/communications by the DGCA authorities are corrective in nature, which have been so taken on the correct facts being placed before the said authority. The petitioner in the present writ petition has not demonstrated that the impugned orders passed by the authorities of the DGCA were so passed in violation of the Act and the Rules holding the field. 17. The petitioner in the agreement having projected to have received the consideration involved and basing on such consideration having transferred his rights, including the approval for operating the said course in the college concerned to the respondent No. 5, cannot be permitted to now, without demonstrating the agreement to have not been performed by the respondent No. 5, to assert rights, which are inconsistent with the projections and undertakings made by him in the said agreement. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being a discretionary relief, equitable in nature, the same cannot be extended to a person, who does not approach this Court with clean hands and who tries to wriggle out of his contractual obligations and consequences, by resorting to seeking remedies under the writ jurisdiction. This Court has examined the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and had factored the same, while drawing the above noted conclusions in the matter. 18. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement executed by the petitioner was rendered void, in view of the fact that the consideration thereon, was not paid by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner, herein. The said contention raised by the petitioner would not be permissible to Page No.# 21/22 be adjudicated by this Court in a summary proceeding like that in the writ jurisdiction. More so, when no explanation is found to have been adduced by the petitioner with regard to the delay occasioning in taking steps in the matter, after execution of the agreement. 19. In the event, the amount involved by way of a cheque was not received by the petitioner, there was nothing, preventing the petitioner to proceed to cancel the agreement executed by him. It is found by this Court that the said agreement still continues to remain in force and the same has not been annulled by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the validity of the cheque, being only for a period of 3 (three) months, the cheque being issued on 29.12.2023, as to why he had acknowledged the receipt of the consideration and also the sufficiency, thereof, in the agreement executed. The petitioner after the execution of the said agreement for a period of around 1 (one) year is not found to have raised any objection in this connection, which further goes to fortify the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, that the consideration involved in the said agreement as well as further payment as was agreed upon, were duly released to the petitioner and/or persons nominated by him in this connection. 20. As the matter stands today, this Court would have to place reliance on the conditions, as set out in the said agreement dated 02.03.2024. In the light of the said agreement, which is continuing to hold the field, the contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court would not mandate an acceptance. The petitioner for the purpose of establishing the contentions now raised before this Court, with regard to the said agreement, would have to institute appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction and therein, Page No.# 22/22 demonstrate as to how the said agreement was rendered null and void. 21. In view of the conclusions reached by this Court, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, is held to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, stand rejected. 22. This Court, however, provides that, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, in accordance with law. In the event of institution of such proceedings by the petitioner, before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, this Court clarifies that the conclusions drawn hereinabove, would not stand in the way of adjudication of such proceeding, on merits. The orders, impugned in the present proceeding, along with the contentions of the petitioner, with regard to the execution of the Deed of Declaration/Acknowledgment dated 02.03.2024, are left open to the petitioner to be contested on merits to establish that the agreement involved, was rendered null and void. 23. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant