Chitra Sonawane. 31-wp-11670-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11670 OF 2026 Jeetendra Krishna Varma .. Petitioner Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors. .. Respondents. ... Mr. Mohan Bir Singh a.w Rahul Jalan i/by MBS & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ashutosh Misra for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Rajendra Shinde a/w Bhumika Jain i/by Svarniti & Associates for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr Mohan Bir Singh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner; Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Rajendra Shinde, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5. 2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred by the Petitioner inter alia seeking following reliefs :- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and after calling for the records and proceedings and satisfying 1 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date: 2026.09.18 15:32:55 +0530 Chitra Sonawane. 31-wp-11670-2026.doc itself about the illegality thereof, to quash and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 07.07.2026 and impugned order dated 07.08.2026 (Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively hereto); (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to punish Respondent No.2 for committing a Civil contempt of this Hon'ble Court for wilfully disobeying and defying the orders and directions of this Hon'ble contained in the Judgment dated 08.06.2026 (Exhibit "N" hereto) passed by this Hon'ble Court;" 3. The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 7th August 2026, passed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation in this Petition ('Impugned Order' for short). However, at the outset, learned Counsel for the Respondent raised an objection on the maintainability of the instant proceedings. 4. Even though the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order, he still has efficacious alternate remedy to press the Appeal under Rule 3B, (2)(i) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which reads thus : "3B Appeals-(1)(i) Any person, aggrieved by an order passed by an officer in exercise of the po,wers conferred on him by these rules, may prefer an appeal, to an appellate officer having jurisdiction in the matter and is next higher in rank to the officer who has passed such order, within a period fo thirty days from the date on which the copy of the said order is received by him. (ii) ................. (2)(i) Where any person is aggrieved by an order passed 2 Chitra Sonawane. 31-wp-11670-2026.doc by an appellate officer under sub-rule(1), he may further prefer an appeal against such order, before the officer next senior to the appellate officer and having jurisdiction in the matter, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the copy of the said order is received by him." 5. In view of Rule 3-B (2)(i) of the Aircraft Rules 1937, in case any Order is passed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Appeal would lie before the Secretary to the Government of India and the Ministry of Civil Aviation and no further Appeal shall lie against such order of the Secretary. 6. It appears that once the efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to by-pass such statutory forum, in the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the instant petition as the Petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy. However, considering the plight of the Petitioner, we disposed of the Petition with the following directions : i) In case an Appeal is preferred by the Petitioner within two weeks of uploading of this Order, the Appellate Authority i.e. the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation may dispose the Appeal on merits, within 3 months from the date of its filing. ii) The Stay Application, if any, preferred by the Petitioner, shall be decided by the Appellate within 3 weeks from the date of its filing. iii) All contentions of the parties are left open. 3 Chitra Sonawane. 31-wp-11670-2026.doc iv) We clarify that we have not adverted to the merits of the matter. 7. The Petition is Disposed Of. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 4