Minutes of meeting cannot override statutory regulation unless duly complied rules of business

The issue before Court was to determine as to whether minutes of meeting can override statutory regulations?

Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) has been granted aerodrome licence by Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) and is a competent authority with respect to Delhi Airport responsible for upgradation, maintenance and operation of Delhi Airport. It has been conferred power to charge fees, rent etc. for the landing, housing or parking of aircraft. The opposite party i.e. Respondent No.1 is a leasing company incorporated under laws of California, U.S.A is into the business of leasing of aircrafts engines and related equipment.

In the instant matter, Kingfisher Airlines (KAL) had been operating commercial airlines and unable to pay dues of various authorities. Its scheduled airline licence was suspended due to non-payment of the parking, landing and housing charges in respect of relevant aircraft which was previously registered to KAL and leased to KAL were detained at Delhi Airport and subsequently got de-registered. Other aircrafts of KAL lying at various airports also got detained at different airports.

DIAL, Airport Authority of India (AAI) and Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) assailing the order of detention of the aircrafts belonging to Respondent No.1 filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of this petition, a meeting was held regarding release of the aircrafts of KAL 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). High Court vide impugned order directed all the airports to release the aircrafts in terms of the decision taken in the above meeting.
DIAL had preferred the present petition against the above impugned order, contending 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 applicable statutory Regulations. It was submitted that 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 in question. Whereas on the contrary it was contended that 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 in question was the decision of the Central Government and the same was in accordance with law.

The Court observed that 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. In terms of relevant Rule the alleged decision taken pursuant to meeting in question 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 were concerned, the alleged decision should have been taken by the concerned committee of the Cabinet and since, the alleged decision involved the financial bearing also, it should have all concurrence of Finance Department also.

It was held that 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. There was nothing on record to show that the minutes of the meeting had the concurrence of 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. When the minutes of meeting were not sanctioned by the competent authority and in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be put against DIAL.

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 and the impugned order was held as liable to be set aside.

[Delhi International Airport Ltd. vs. International Lease Finance Corpn. & Ors.]
(SC, 17.03.2015 – (Civil Appeal No. 2932 of 2015)