Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2932  OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.27062/2013

DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.            ..Appellant

Versus

INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE                CORPN. &  OTHERS       ..Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order  

dated  8.5.2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  in  Writ  

Petition (Civil)  No.7767/2012, wherein the Division Bench of  

the  High  Court  allowed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  

respondent  No.1.    The  issue  falling  for  consideration  is  

1

Page 2

whether  minutes  of  meeting  can  override  statutory  

regulations.

3. The appellant is Delhi International Airport Limited, a  

joint venture and public partnership between GMR companies,  

Ministry  of  Civil  Aviation,  Fraport  Germany  and  Eraman  

Malaysia.  Appellant has been granted aerodrome licence by  

Director General Civil  Aviation (DGCA) on 1.5.2008 and is a  

competent authority with respect to Delhi Airport responsible  

for upgradation, maintenance and operation of Delhi Airport.  

Appellant has been conferred power under Section 22(i)(a) of  

the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 (short for ‘AAI Act’) to  

charge fees, rent etc. for the landing, housing or parking of  

aircraft.  Respondent No.1 is a leasing company incorporated  

under laws of  California,  U.S.A,  engaged in the business of  

leasing of aircrafts engines and related equipment.  

4. Kingfisher  Airlines  (KAL)  had  been  operating  

commercial  airlines  and  unable  to  pay  dues  of  various  

authorities.    The  scheduled  airline  licence  of  the  8th  

respondent-Kingfisher  Airlines  (KAL)  was  suspended  due  to  

non-payment of the parking, landing and housing charges in  

respect  of  the  aircraft  bearing registration No.VT-KFT which  2

Page 3

was previously registered to Kingfisher Airlines Limited (KAL)  

and leased to KAL by respondent No.1 were detained at Delhi  

Airport  and  subsequently  got  de-registered  on  27.12.2012.  

Section 22 of the AAI Act provides for levy of landing, housing  

and parking charges at the Airport. These charges (amounting  

to a total of Rs.10,50,51,052.77 for all eight detained aircraft)  

and  other  statutory  charges  and  dues  (amounting  to  

Rs.12,64,08,706.57 for  all  eight  detained aircraft)  attach to  

the aircraft and have to be discharged by the person in control  

of the aircraft is under Regulation 10.  Other aircrafts of KAL  

lying at various airports also got detained at different airports  

due  to  non-payment  of  charges  and  subsequently  

deregistered.   

5. Assailing  the  order  of  detention  of  the  aircrafts  

belonging to respondent No.1 by Delhi  International  Airport  

Limited (short for ‘DIAL’), Airport Authority of India (short for  

‘AAI’)  and  Mumbai  International  Airport  Limited  (short  for  

‘MIAL’)  and  challenging  vires  Regulation  10  of  the  Airport  

Authority  of  India  (Management  of  Airports)  Regulations,  

2003, respondent No.1 filed writ petition before the Delhi High  

Court. 3

Page 4

6. During pendency of the writ petition, on 26.3.2013 a  

meeting  was  held  regarding  release  of  the  aircrafts  of  

respondent No.8 by the airport operators.  The participants in  

the meeting included representatives of (a) Ministry of Civil  

Aviation (MCA), (b) Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC),  

(c)  Director  General  of  Civil  Aviation  (DGCA),  (d)  Airports  

Authority of India (AAI), (e) Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd.  

(DIAL), (f) Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (MIAL).  After  

detailed discussions various  decisions  were made.    It  was  

inter- alia decided that:-

“(i)  DGCA  shall,  henceforth,  seek  views  of  concerned  airport operators prior to deregistration of remaining  KFA aircraft;  

(ii) CBEC  and DGCA shall reconcile list of remaining KFA  aircraft  registered  with  DGCA  so  as  to  confirm  whether  these  aircrafts  are  purely  under  financial/operating lease or some of them are jointly  owned by Lessor and KFA;

(iii) The concerned airport operators shall release all the  de-registered  aircraft  to  the  respective  owners/lessors  immediately  so  that  these  aircrafts  can fly  out  of  the  country.   They are  at  liberty  to  collect parking charges from the owners/lessors from  the  date  of  de-registration.   In  case  any  of  these  deregistered aircrafts are subject matter of any court  case  between  the  owners/lessors  and  the  airport  operator, then the airport would take action as per  the decision of the Court.”   

7. High  Court  of  Delhi  vide  impugned  order  dated  

8.5.2013 directed all  the airports to release the aircrafts in  

4

Page 5

terms of  the  above decision  taken in  the  meeting  held  on  

26.3.2013 on payment of parking charges up to 13.5.2013.  

Being aggrieved, the appellant-DIAL has preferred this appeal  

by way of special leave.

8.  Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for  

the appellant submitted that the minutes of the meeting is in  

the  nature  of  an  executive  decision  and  it  curtails  their  

statutory power to detain the aircrafts for non-payment  of  

fees and said minutes of  meeting cannot override Regulation  

10 and other statutory regulations.  It was submitted that the  

minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 is not a general or a  

special order passed by the Central Government and does not  

have  statutory  force.   Placing  reliance  upon  Shanti  Sports  

Club & Anr. vs.  Union of India & Ors.1 and Sant Ram Sharma  

vs.  State  of  Rajasthan  &  Ors.2, it  was  submitted  that  the  

government  cannot  amend or  supersede statutory  rules  by  

administrative  instructions  and  the  High  Court  erred  in  

directing release of the aircrafts in terms of the decision taken  

in the meeting held on 26.3.2013.

1 (2009) 15 SCC 705 2 (1968) 1 SCR 111

5

Page 6

9. We have heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior  

Counsel appearing for Union of India and Mr. Neeraj Sharma,  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  respondent  No.1.  We  have  

carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions  and  perused  the  

impugned order and material on record.

10. Section  22  (i)(a)  of  the  AAI  Act  confers  powers  to  

charge fees, rent etc. for the landing, housing or parking of  

aircrafts.  These charges for landing, housing and parking are  

fixed  by  Airport  Economic  Regulatory  Authority  (short  for  

‘AERA’) during the tariff determination procedure undertaken  

after extensive consultation with the stake   holders.   Section  

42(2)(o)  of  the  AAI  Act  empowers  the  authority  to  make  

regulations not inconsistent with the AAI Act and the Rules  

made  thereunder  generally  for  the efficient  and  proper  

management of the airport or civil enclave.   It is relevant to  

refer to Regulation 42 which reads as under:-

“42.(1) The  authority  may  make  Regulations  not  inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to  provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or  expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions  of this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing  power,  such Regulations may provide for -…..

(o)  generally  for  the  efficient  and  proper  management of the airport or civil  enclave.”  

6

Page 7

11. In  exercise  of  the  powers  under  Regulation 42 (2)

(o),  AAI notified the Airport Authority of India (Management of  

Airports) Regulations, 2003 (short for ‘AAI Regulations’).   In  

this appeal, we are concerned with Regulation 10 which reads  

as under:-  

“10. Unless  otherwise  provided  under  the  Act  or  by  a  general  or  special  order  in  writing  by  the  Central  Government, the use of the movement area of Airport, by  an aircraft  shall  be subject  to  payment  of  such landing,  parking or housing fees or  charges as are levied by the  Authority from time to time.  In the event of non-payment  of  the requisite fee or charges, the Competent Authority  shall    have  a  right  to  detain  or  stop  departure  of  the  aircraft till the fees or charges are paid to Authority, which  may include the current and accumulated dues.”   

12. ‘Competent  Authority’  is  defined  in  Regulation  3(8)  

which reads as under:-

“8. ‘Competent  Authority’   means   in  relation  to  exercise  of any power of the Authority, the Chairperson,  and any  member authorized by the Chairperson, Airport  Director  or  Controller  of  Aerodrome  or  Incharge  of  any  Airport or civil enclave or any other officer specified by the  Chairperson in that behalf.”  

The appellant is the competent authority with respect to the  

Delhi  Airport  having  been  granted  aerodrome  licence  from  

DGCA on 1.5.2008.  Section 42 (2)(o)  read with Section 22 of  

the  AAI Act and Regulation 10 is a complete code with regard  

7

Page 8

to  the  right  of   the  airport  operator   to  levy  and  ensure  

collection  of  dues  including  the  right  to  detain  or  stop  

departure  of  the  aircraft  till  the  fees  or  charges  are  paid  

irrespective of the ownership of the aircraft.  The charges and  

dues are attached to the aircraft.  According to the appellant-

DIAL, it has the right to detain or stop departure of aircrafts till  

the  fees  or  charges  in  this  case  the  landing,  housing  and  

parking  charges  are  determined  by  AERA  are  paid  and  

minutes  of  the  meeting  dated  26.3.2013  cannot  override  

regulations.  

13. Under  Regulation  10,  competent  authority  has  the  

authority   to  detain   the  aircraft  or  stop  departure  of  the  

aircraft “unless otherwise provided by the Act or by  general   

or  special    order  in  writing  by the Central  Government”.  

According  to  the  appellant,  under  the  Regulation,  the  

appellant  has  the  right   to  detain  or  stop  an  aircraft  and  

minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 is not a general or  

special order passed by the Central Government and it cannot  

override the powers of  the Airport  Authority  of  India under  

Regulation 10.    

8

Page 9

14. According to Union of India, Government has the sole  

prerogative to take a decision by virtue of Section 40 of the  

AAI Act and in the present case minutes of the meeting dated  

26.03.2013 is the decision of the Central Government which is  

in accordance with law.  

15. The High Court has mainly relied upon minutes of the  

meeting  dated  26.3.2013.   It  has  neither  gone  into  the  

question whether the minutes of the meeting, where decision  

was taken by the Central Government in accordance with the  

provision of Section 40 of the AAI Act nor it had examined the  

vires of Regulation 10.  The High Court had only referred to  

the minutes of the meeting and disposed of the writ petition,  

recording  the  statement  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

petitioner  that  the  directions  as  per  the  minutes  of  the  

meeting are complied with.   It  has to be seen whether the  

minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 would amount to a  

general  order  or  special  order  passed  by  the  Central  

Government and whether it would override the powers of the  

Airport Authority of India under Regulation 10.

16. Article 77 of the Constitution of India deals with the  

conduct of business of Government of India while Article 166  9

Page 10

of  the  Constitution  of  India  deals  with  the  conduct  of  

business  of  the  Government  of  the  State.    All  executive  

actions of the Government of India  and the Government of a  

State  are required to be taken  in the name of the President  

or the Governor  of the concerned State as the case may be.   

17. Clause  (1)  of  Article  77 of  the  Constitution  of  India  

provides that whenever executive action is to be taken by way  

of an order or instrument, it shall be expressed to be taken in  

the name of the President in whom the executive power of the  

Union is vested. Clause (2) of Article 77 of the Constitution of  

India provides that the validity of an order or instrument made  

or executed in the name of the President, and authenticated  

in the manner specified in the rules made by the President,  

shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an  

order or instrument made or executed by the President.   

18. Under clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of  

India, the President is to make rules for the more convenient  

transaction of government business and for the allocation of  

the same amongst ministers.   A similar  provision occurs in  

Article 166(3) empowering the Governors to make rules for  

the  conduct  of  government  business  in  the  States.   In  all  10

Page 11

cases in  which the President or  the Governor  exercises his  

functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution with  

the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers, he does so by  

making rules for more convenient transaction of business and  

for  allocation  among  ministers  of  the  said  business  in  

accordance  with  Articles  77(3)  and  166(3)  respectively.  

Further, the rules of business and allocation among ministers  

is  relatable to  Articles  53(1)  and 154(1)  that  the executive  

power  shall  be exercised by the  President  or  the Governor  

directly or through the subordinate officers.   The President or  

the Governor means the President or the Governor aided and  

advised by the Council of Ministers.  Neither Article 77(3) nor  

Article 166(3) provides for any delegation of power.  

19. Under  the  Government  of  India  (Transaction  of  

Business)  Rules,  1961,  the  government  business  is  divided  

amongst the ministers  and specific functions are reallocated  

to  different  ministries.   Each  ministry  can  therefore  issue  

orders or notifications in respect of the functions which have  

been allocated to it  under the Rules of Business.   We may  

usefully   refer  to  Government  of  India  (Transaction  of  

Business)  Rules,  1961,  as  lastly  amended   by  amendment  11

Page 12

dated  1.12.2014  made  by  the  President  in  exercise  of  the  

provisions of sub-clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of  

India for more convenient transaction of the business of the  

Government of India.   Rule 3 provides that subject to certain  

exceptions  made  thereunder,   all  business  allotted  to  a  

department  under  the  Government  of  India  (Allocation  of  

Business) Rules,  1961 shall  be disposed of by or under the  

general or special directions of the Minister in Charge. Further  

Rule  4  provides  for  Inter-Departmental  Consultations.   Rule  

4(1) reads as under:-

“4  Inter-Departmental  Consultations.-(1) When  the  subject of a case concerns more than one department, no  decision  be  taken  or  order  issued  until  all  such  departments have concurred, or, failing such concurrence,  a  decision  thereon  has  been  taken  by  or  under  the  authority  of the Cabinet.”

Sub-clause (2) of Rule 4 which is very much relevant in  

instant case can be reproduced here for convenience:

“Unless the case is fully covered by powered to sanction  expenditure  or  to  appropriate  or  re-appropriate  funds,  conferred by any general  or special  orders made by the  Ministry  of  Finance,  no  department  shall,  without  the  previous concurrence of the  Ministry of Finance,  issue any  orders which may-

(a) involve any  abandonment of  revenue  or  involve  any  expenditure  for  which  no  provision  has  been  made  in  the appropriation act;  

12

Page 13

(b) … (c) .. (d)  Otherwise  have  a  financial  

bearing  whether  involving  expenditure or not;”

20. In State of Sikkim vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia & Ors.3, it  

is observed as under:-

“14….The government business is conducted under Article  166(3) of the Constitution in accordance with the Rules of  Business made by the Governor. Under the said Rules the  government business is divided amongst the ministers and  specific functions are allocated to different ministries. Each  ministry  can,  therefore,  issue  orders  or  notifications  in  respect of  the functions which have been allocated to it  under the Rules of Business.”

21. In Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat  

& Ors.4,  it is held as under:-

“14…It  would,  therefore,  be  clear  that  the  decision  of  a  Minister under the Business Rules is not final or conclusive  until  the requirements in terms of clauses (1) and (2) of  Article  166  are  complied  with.  Before  the  action  or  the  decision is expressed in the name of the Governor in the  manner  prescribed  under  the  Business  Rules  and  communicated to the party concerned it would always be  open  by  necessary  implication,  to  the  Chief  Minister  to  send for the file and have it examined by himself and to  take  a  decision,  though  the  subject  was  allotted  to  a  particular  Minister  for  convenient  transaction  of  the  business  of  the  Government.  The  subject,  though  exclusively  allotted  to  the  Minister,  by  reason  of  the  responsibility  of  the  Chief  Minister  to  the  Governor  and  accountability to the people, has implied power to call for  the  file  relating  to  a  decision  taken  by  a  Minister.  The  object of allotment of the subject to a Minister is for the  convenient  transaction  of  the  business  at  various  levels  through designated officers….”

3 (1991) 4 SCC 243

4 (1996) 2 SCC 26

13

Page 14

22. In terms of Rule 3 the alleged decision taken pursuant  

to meeting dated 26.3.2013 should have been sanctioned by  

under  the  general  or  special  directions  of  the  Minister  in  

Charge.  Since in this case, stakes of different departments  

headed by different ministries are concerned, the provision of  

Rule  4  would  apply  i.e.  alleged  decision  should  have  been  

taken by the concerned committee of the Cabinet.   Since, the  

alleged decision involves the financial bearing also,  it should  

have all concurrence of Finance Department also.  Apparently  

alleged minutes of  the meeting purportedly stated to be an  

order  in  writing  by  Central  Government  and  later  

communicated  to  all  concerned,  are  not  disposed  of  in  

pursuance of Rule 4 i.e. neither the decision was sanctified by  

Cabinet  nor  the  concurrence  of  Finance  Department  was  

taken.

23. At this stage, it is apposite  to consider the ratio laid  

down in  MRF Limited vs.  Manohar Parrikar & Ors.5,  wherein  

scope  of   Article  166  (3)  was  under  consideration  and  

5  2010 (11) SCC 374

14

Page 15

observing that Rules of Business framed under Articles 166(3)  

and 77(3) are mandatory,  this Court has held as under:-  

“67..…In the case on hand, we are required to examine the  contentions of the appellants on this issue with reference  to the Business Rules framed by Governor of  Goa under  Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. 68. Rule 7(2) of the Business Rules of the Government of  Goa  states,  that,  a  proposal  which  requires  previous  concurrence  of  the  Finance  Department  under  the  said  Rule,  but  in  which  the  Finance  Department  has  not  concurred, may not be proceeded with, unless the Council  of  Ministers  has  taken  a  decision  to  that  effect.  The  wordings of this Rule are different from the provisions of  Rule 9 of the Business Rules of Maharashtra and have to be  read  in  context  with  the  provisions  of  Rule  3  of  the  Business Rules of the Government of Goa which states that  the  business  of  the  Government  shall  be  transacted  in  accordance  with  the  Business  Rules.  Under  Rule  7(2)  thereof,  the concurrence of  the Finance Department is a  condition precedent. 69. Likewise, Rule 6 of the Business Rules states, that, the  Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible for all  executive orders passed by any Department in the name of  the Governor or  contract made in  exercise of  the power  conferred on the Governor or any other officer subordinate  to him in accordance with the Rules, whether such orders  or contracts are authorised by an individual Minister on a  matter pertaining to the Department under his charge or  as the result of discussion at a meeting of the Council of  Ministers or otherwise. This Rule requires that an executive  order  issued  from  any  Department  in  the  name  of  the  Governor of the State should be known to the Council of  Ministers so as to fulfil the collective responsibility of the  Council of Ministers. 70. Further, Rule 7 of the Business Rules requires that no  Department shall without the concurrence of the Finance  Department  issue  any  order  which  may  involve  any  abandonment of revenue or involve expenditure for which  no provisions have been made in the Appropriation Act or  involve  any  grant  of  land  or  assignment  of  revenue  or  concession, grant, lease or licence in respect of minerals or  forest rights or rights to water, power or any easement or  privilege or otherwise have financial implications whether  involving expenditure or not.

15

Page 16

71. From a combined reading of the provisions of Rules 7,  3 and 6 of the Business Rules of the Government of Goa  the conclusion would be irresistible that any proposal which  is  likely  to  be  converted  into  a  decision  of  the  State  Government  involving  expenditure  or  abandonment  of  revenue  for  which  there  is  no  provision  made  in  the  Appropriation Act or an issue which involves concession or  otherwise  has  a  financial  implication  on  the  State  is  required to be processed only after the concurrence of the  Finance Department and cannot be finalised merely at the  level  of  the Minister-in-charge.  The procedure or  process  does not stop at this. After the concurrence of the Finance  Department  the  proposal  has  to  be  placed  before  the  Council of Ministers and/or the Chief Minister and only after  a decision is taken in this regard that it will result in the  decision  of  the  State  Government.  Therefore,  the  High  Court has rightly rejected the arguments of the appellants  herein based on the judgment of the Full Bench of the High  Court. 72. The  High  Court  has  observed,  that  the  Rules  of  Business are framed in such a manner that the mandate of  the  provisions  of  Articles  154,  163  and  166  of  the  Constitution  are fulfilled.  Therefore,  if  it  is  held  that  the  non-compliance  with  these  Rules  does  not  vitiate  the  decisions taken by an individual Minister concerned alone,  the result would be disastrous. In a democratic set-up the  decision  of  the  State  Government  must  reflect  the  collective  wisdom of  the  Council  of  Ministers  or  at  least  that of the Chief Minister who heads the Council. The fact  that the decisions taken by the Minister alone were acted  upon  by  issuance  of  notification  will  not  render  them  decisions  of  the  State  Government  even  if  the  State  Government chose to remain silent for a sufficient period  of  time  or  the  Secretary  concerned  to  the  State  Government did not take any action under Rule 46 of the  Business Rules. If every decision of an individual Minister  taken in breach of the Rules are treated to be those of the  State Government within the meaning of Article 154 of the  Constitution,  the  result  would  be  chaotic.  The  Chief  Minister  would  remain  a  mere  figure  head  and  every  Minister  will  be  free  to  act  on  his  own  by  keeping  the  Business Rules at bay. Further, it would make it impossible  to discharge the constitutional  responsibility of  the Chief  Minister  of  advising  the  Governor  under  Article  163.  Therefore,  it  is  difficult  to  accept  the contentions  of  the  appellants that the Business Rules are directory.

16

Page 17

73. We also subscribe to and uphold the view of the High  Court that Business Rules 3, 6, 7 and 9 are mandatory and  not  directory  and  any  decision  taken  by  any  individual  Minister  in  violation  of  them  cannot  be  termed  as  the  decision of the State Government. We are fortified in our  view by several decisions of this Court”. (emphasis added)

24. From a combined reading of Rules 3, 4, 4(2) and  in  

the light of the above decisions, the minutes of meeting which  

is to be converted as a general or special order in writing by  

the  Central  Government  involving  the  abandonment  of  

revenue or which has a financial implication on the Airports  

Authority of India which is under the control of Civil Aviation  

Ministry, it was required to proceed only after the concurrence  

of Finance Department.  It cannot be finalized merely at the  

level of officers/representatives of Civil Aviation, Central Board  

of Excise and Customs etc.  After concurrence of the Finance  

Ministry,   the  minutes  of  the  meeting  ought  to  have  been  

placed  before  the  concerned  minister  as  per  the  Rules  of  

Business.   Sanctification by the concerned ministry and the  

concurrence  of  Finance  Department  was  a  mandatory  

condition in order to hold the minutes of the meeting dated  

26.3.2013 as  “a general  or  special  order  in  writing  by  the  

Central  Government”.  In  the  absence  of  any  such  

17

Page 18

sanctification by the competent authority, in our view, mere  

minutes of the meeting would not give any indefeasible right  

to the appellant.

25. According to the second respondent (Union of India),  

the meeting had been convened in the backdrop of Cape Town  

Convention and Protocol i.e. the Convention on International  

Interests  in  Mobile  Equipment  which  provides  for  the  

protection of the international interests  in the aircrafts  as  

well  and  India   became  signatory   to  this  Convention  on  

31.3.2008.   Union  of  India  contends  that  in  the  meeting  

convened on 26.3.2013, it was decided that in order to honour  

the international  obligations of India and to restore faith of  

international  business  community  and  investors,  it  was  

necessary to allow   the aircrafts to be returned to the owners-

lessors.   Stand of UOI is that minutes of the meeting is the  

decision of the Central Government is in accordance with law  

and has the force of law.  Such a decision involving financial  

implications  must  have  been  taken  in  terms  of  the  

constitutional scheme i.e. upon compliance of requirement of  

Article 77 of the Constitution.  There is nothing on record to  

show that the minutes of the meeting had the concurrence of  18

Page 19

the  Finance  Department  and  was  either  confirmed  or  

approved by the concerned minister and such directions were  

not shown to have been issued pursuant to any decision taken  

by a competent authority in terms of Rules of Business framed  

under Article 77 of the Constitution of India.  The minutes of  

the  meeting  do  not  become  a  general  or  special  order  in  

writing  by  the  Central  Government  unless  the  same  was  

sanctified and acted upon by issuing  an order  in the name of  

the President in the manner provided under Article 77 (2) of  

the Constitution.

26.  It  is  the  further  contention  that  the  Central  

Government  has the sole  prerogative to  take a  decision to  

waive the right to detain the aircraft and in the present case,  

DIAL   has waived its right by participating in the meeting and  

accepting  the  decision  taken  in  the  meeting.  It  was  also  

submitted that the Central Government is empowered to take  

a unilateral decision in this regard and the appellant had not  

objected to the decision being made and thus precluded from  

raising any objections regarding the same.  When the minutes  

of meeting were not sanctioned by the competent authority  19

Page 20

and   in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Article  

77(3) of the Constitution of India,  the same cannot be put  

against the appellant.  

27. In  Haridwar Singh vs.  Bagun Sumbrui and Ors.6,   this  

Court was dealing  with the Business of Rules of the State of  

Bihar framed under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution of India  

wherein this Court held (pp.895-896 paras 14-16) as under:-  

“14.  Where  a  prescription  relates  to  performance  of  a  public duty and to invalidate acts done in neglect of them  would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to  persons who have no control over those entrusted with the  duty,  such  prescription  is  generally  understood  as  mere  instruction for the guidance of those upon whom the duty  is imposed (See Dattatreya Moreshwer Pangarkar vs. State  of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 181).  15. Where however, a power or authority is conferred with  a  direction  that  certain  regulation  or  formality  shall  be  complied  with,  it  seems  neither  unjust  nor  incorrect  to  exact  a  rigorous  observance  of  it  as  essential  to  the  acquisition  of  the  right  or  authority  (see  Maxwell,  Interpretation of Statutes, 6th Edn., pp.649-650). 16. …..Further, Rule 10(2) makes it clear that where prior  consultation with the Finance Department is required for a  proposal,  and the Department  on consultation,  does  not  agree  to  the  proposal,  the  Department  originating  the  proposal can take no further action on the proposal. The  Cabinet  alone  would  be  competent  to  take  a  decision.  When  we  see  that  the  disagreement  of  the  Finance  Department with a proposal on consultation, deprives the  Department originating the proposal of the power to take  further  action  on it,  the  only  conclusion  possible  is  that  prior  consultation  is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  the  exercise of the power….”

6 (1973) 3 SCC 889

20

Page 21

28. Unless  the  minutes  of  meeting  resulted  in  a  final  

decision taken by the competent authority in terms of Article  

77(3)  of  the  Constitution  and  the  decision  so  taken  is  

communicated to the concerned person,  the same was not  

capable  of  being  enforced  by  issuing  a  direction  in  a  writ  

petition.  Without going into the merits of the matter, High  

Court was not right in disposing of the matter in terms of the  

minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 and the impugned  

order is liable to be set aside.

29. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the  

appeal is allowed.  The appellant is at liberty to invoke the  

bank guarantee furnished by the respondents.  The appellant  

is also at liberty to recover the arrears of landing,  parking or  

housing  fees  charges  from  the  concerned  respondents  in  

accordance with law.   No order as to costs.

.……………………J.                                                                     (V. Gopala Gowda)

                                  ……………………J.                                                                 (R. Banumathi)

New Delhi; 21

Page 22

March 17, 2015

22