Procedural Lapses vs. Substantive Compliance: The Court held that minor procedural lapses, such as the absence of the signatory’s name and witnesses’ addresses in the Undertaking 1E form, do not amount to a substantive lapse and should not deprive the petitioners of the NOC already approved by the Appellate Committee. (Para 33)

Lapse of Application: The Court rejected the AAI’s argument that the petitioners’ application had lapsed due to the passage of time. The Court held that the Appellate Committee’s decision in 2016 was valid, and the petitioners should not be subjected to the new norms for height clearance. (Para 35)

Judicial Review of Technical Decisions: The Court held that while technical decisions of the AAI are generally not interfered with, in this case, the Appellate Committee had already approved the height of 84.92 meters AMSL, and the Court was not deciding the height but ensuring that the petitioners’ rights were not denied due to procedural lapses. (Para 36)

The Court held that the minor procedural lapses in the submission of the Undertaking 1E form, such as the absence of the signatory’s name and witnesses’ addresses, were not substantive and should not deprive the petitioners of the NOC for 84.92 meters AMSL. The Court directed the AAI to issue the NOC within four weeks, accepting the revised undertaking submitted by the petitioners in March 2024. (Para 33, 40)

Acts and Sections:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction.

2. Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 – Registration of LLP.

3. Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Registration of Partnership Firm.

4. Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Amendment Rules, 2020 – GSR 770E.

5. Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 – GSR 877E.

Subjects:

• Height Clearance NOC – No Objection Certificate for building height.

• Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Project for rehabilitating slum dwellers.

• Aeronautical Study – Technical assessment for height clearance.

• Appellate Committee – Authority under AAI for height clearance appeals.

• Undertaking 1E – Form for compliance with AAI requirements.

• AMSL – Above Mean Sea Level, measurement of building height.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation:

   • The petitioners, developers involved in a slum rehabilitation project, sought a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to issue a revised No Objection Certificate (NOC) for building height clearance of 84.92 meters AMSL. The refusal was based on minor procedural lapses in the submission of the Undertaking 1E form. (Para 2, 3)

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?:

   • The petitioners, M/s. Paradigm Dotom Buildheights LLP, Jai Bhagwati Developers & Builders, and M/s. R. K. Madhani & Co., sought the court to quash the impugned communication dated 6 June 2023 and direct the respondents to issue the final NOC for the height of 84.92 meters AMSL. (Para 3)

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

   • The petitioners had obtained an initial NOC for 56.90 meters AMSL in 2013, but later sought approval for 84.92 meters AMSL based on the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) recommendations. The Appellate Committee of AAI approved the revised height in 2016, but the NOC was not issued due to minor deficiencies in the Undertaking 1E form. The petitioners argued that the lapse was procedural and not substantive. (Para 7, 10, 12)

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?:

   • The Appellate Committee had approved the height of 84.92 meters AMSL in 2016, but the NOC was not issued due to non-submission of the correct Undertaking 1E form. The petitioners submitted a revised undertaking in March 2024, but the AAI refused to issue the NOC, citing the lapse of time and the need for reassessment under new norms. (Para 11, 22)

Issues:

1. Whether the minor procedural lapses in the submission of the Undertaking 1E form could deprive the petitioners of the NOC for 84.92 meters AMSL already approved by the Appellate Committee? (Para 26, 33)

2. Whether the petitioners’ application for height clearance should be treated as a fresh application under the new norms due to the lapse of time? (Para 27, 35)

3. Whether the Court could interfere in the technical decision of the AAI regarding height clearance? (Para 36)

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioners’ Arguments:

   • The petitioners argued that the minor deficiencies in the Undertaking 1E form, such as the absence of the signatory’s name and witnesses’ addresses, were not substantive lapses and should not deprive them of the NOC for 84.92 meters AMSL. They contended that the Appellate Committee had already approved the height in 2016, and the petitioners had complied with all substantive requirements. (Para 26, 33)

   • The petitioners relied on GSR 877E, which allows for the extension of NOC validity for up to 12 years, and argued that their application should not be treated as lapsed. (Para 26)

2. Respondents’ Arguments:

   • The AAI argued that the petitioners had failed to submit the correct Undertaking 1E form within the validity period of the 2013 NOC, and thus, the application had lapsed. The AAI contended that the petitioners’ case needed to be reassessed under the new norms and that the Court should not interfere in the technical decision of the AAI. (Para 24, 27)

   • The AAI also argued that granting the NOC to the petitioners would set a precedent for other lapsed cases. (Para 27)