Introduction: The Litigious Skyline
In a judgment that meticulously
delineates the contours of judicial review in the realm of specialised
administrative action, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, delivered a significant
ruling on December 24, 2025. The case, involving appeals by both the Airports
Authority of India (AAI) and Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation
Ltd., arises from a protracted dispute concerning permissible building heights
in the vicinity of the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport in
Kolkata. The judgment, Airports Authority of India v. Shristi Infrastructure
Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., serves as a cornerstone precedent on
several pivotal administrative law principles: the doctrine of judicial
deference to expert statutory bodies, the nuanced requirements of reasoned
decision-making, and the non-existence of vested rights in the face of evolving
safety-centric regulations.
Factual Matrix: A Tale of
Towers and Technicalities
The factual substratum of the
dispute is complex, spanning nearly two decades and multiple regulatory
regimes. Shristi Infrastructure (the Petitioner/Appellant) undertook the
development of a twin-tower complex (Tower-I and Tower-II) in New Town,
Kolkata, approximately 7.06 kilometres from the airport. Due to this proximity,
construction required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Section 9A of the
Aircraft Act, 1934, and its attendant rules, which govern height restrictions
to safeguard aircraft operations.
The litigation odyssey began with
an NOC granted in 2006 under the then-operative 1988 notification, permitting
both towers a height of 144.53 metres Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). The
Petitioner failed to complete Tower-II within the NOC's validity period. During
subsequent applications for revalidation, the regulatory landscape shifted. The
AAI, applying the superseding 2010 and later the 2015 Notifications (the Height
Restrictions for Safeguarding Aircraft Operations Rules, 2015), progressively
restricted the permissible height for Tower-II, ultimately capping it at 105.48
metres AMSL, contingent on the commissioning of a proposed Air Surveillance
Radar (ASR).
The core of the technical dispute
revolved around the 2015 Notification’s criteria for classifying structures as
"large objects." A structure, individually or collectively with
others, is deemed "large" if it subtends an azimuth angle of 0.4
degrees or more at the radar antenna. Furthermore, a cluster of buildings is to
be considered a single object if the gap between adjacent buildings subtends an
angle of less than 0.4 degrees. The AAI’s consistent position, following a
joint site inspection in November 2018 and analysis via its No Objection
Certificate Application System (NOCAS), was that Tower-I and Tower-II, when
considered together as a cluster, subtended an angle exceeding 0.4 degrees,
thus forming a "large structure" and disqualifying Tower-II from a
higher clearance.
The Petitioner challenged this
determination, culminating in a Writ Petition before a Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court. The Petitioner’s primary contentions were threefold: (i) the
AAI’s gap-angle assessment was based on a "crude method" as noted in
an internal file, not on scientific computation; (ii) an independent expert
report from Sakthi Aviation supported their case that the towers did not form a
cluster; and (iii) the final communication from AAI dated March 8, 2019,
conveying the decision, was cryptic and violated principles of natural justice.
The learned Single Judge, in the
Impugned Judgment dated October 15, 2024, adopted a bifurcated reasoning. On
one hand, the Court upheld the AAI’s technical conclusions, finding them to be
within the domain of expert judgment and supported by the record. On the other
hand, the Court set aside the March 8, 2019 communication solely on the ground
that it was unreasoned, cryptic, and violated natural justice, while granting
liberty to the AAI to take fresh action.
This led to two cross-appeals
under the Letters Patent:
1.LPA 1168/2024 by AAI:
Challenging the setting aside of its communication.
2.LPA 63/2025 by Shristi
Infrastructure: Challenging the portions of the Single Judge’s order that
upheld the AAI’s technical findings.
The Division Bench’s Analysis:
A Masterclass in Administrative Law Doctrine
The Division Bench’s judgment is
a model of structured legal reasoning, addressing each limb of the dispute with
reference to well-established constitutional and administrative law principles.
1. Affirmation of Judicial
Deference to Expert Bodies
The Court commenced its analysis
by reiterating the fundamental limitations of judicial review in matters
requiring technical expertise. Citing landmark Supreme Court precedents in Federation
of Railway Officers Associations & Ors. v. Union of India (2003) and Jal
Mahal Resorts Private Limited v. K.P. Sharma & Ors. (2014), the Bench
underscored that courts do not sit as appellate authorities over the decisions
of expert statutory bodies. The role of the court is supervisory, confined to
examining the legality of the process, checking for arbitrariness,
irrationality, mala fides, or procedural impropriety. It is not to re-weigh
technical evidence or substitute its own judgment on complex scientific
matters.
Applying this doctrine, the Bench
firmly rejected Shristi Infrastructure’s attempts to invite the Court into a
technical re-evaluation. The Court held:
a. On the "Crude
Method" Noting: The Petitioner heavily relied on an internal file
noting of a Joint General Manager which described the gap analysis using a
"crude method without any mathematical solution or computer-simulated
modelling." The Court, agreeing with the Single Judge, held that an
internal deliberative notation does not vitiate a final decision based on a
comprehensive technical process. The Court found that the site inspection of
November 1, 2018, was conducted jointly, coordinates were recorded, and
subsequent NOCAS-based calculations provided the scientific basis for the
decision. The "crude method" reference, in the Court’s view,
pertained merely to an illustrative pictorial depiction, not the underlying
numerical analysis. The Court rightly cautioned that internal file notings,
while potentially probative of procedural flaws, cannot by themselves displace
a technically sound final decision.
b. On the Sakthi Aviation
Report: The Court was unequivocal in dismissing the relevance of the
private expert report. It held that such a report, lacking any statutory
imprimatur, is at best an opinion that the authority may consider but is under
no legal obligation to adopt. The Court cannot prefer a private expert’s
methodology over the considered view of the competent statutory body tasked
with ensuring public safety. To do so would, in effect, convert the court into
a technical appellate tribunal, a role it is institutionally unsuited to
perform.
c. On the Multi-Radar and
Other Technical Arguments: The Court expressly declined to enter into
technical questions regarding the number of radars at Kolkata Airport or the
specifics of radar tilt angles. It affirmed that such determinations, which
directly implicate aviation safety and air-traffic management, fall squarely
within the "exclusive province of expert statutory authorities."
Judicial substitution of opinion in such safety-critical domains would be
"not only inappropriate but also potentially detrimental to public interest."
This portion of the judgment is a
robust reaffirmation of the Chevron-like deference Indian courts accord to
specialised agencies, especially in fields like aviation, where safety is
paramount.
2. Reversal on Natural
Justice: The "Reasons" Requirement in Context
The most legally significant
portion of the judgment is the Division Bench’s reversal of the Single Judge’s
finding that the March 8, 2019 communication was unreasoned and violated
natural justice.
The impugned communication was indeed brief:
"On examination, it was
concluded that the Tower-II does not qualify for higher height, as along with
Tower-I, it becomes a large structure. Therefore, Tower-II is restricted to the
earlier Top Elevation granted by AAI."
The Single Judge had found this
to be "cryptic, mechanical and… passed without application of mind."
The Division Bench undertook a contextual and holistic analysis, arriving at
the opposite conclusion.
The Court emphasized that the
March 8, 2019 communication was not a de novo or standalone decision. It was
the final step in a protracted, multi-stage process of re-examination that the
AAI had voluntarily undertaken. This process included:
1. Sustained engagement and
correspondence with the Petitioner.
2. A joint site inspection on November
1, 2018, with the Petitioner’s representatives present.
3. The generation of a detailed
expert site inspection report.
4. NOCAS-based technical
calculations.
The Bench held that the
requirement for a reasoned decision must be assessed by examining the record as
a whole, not in isolation. Where a decision is the culmination of a
transparent, participatory, and technically documented process, the final
communication need not regurgitate all underlying reasons. The reasons are
"discernible from the record."
Crucially, the Court noted that
the Petitioner’s challenge was peculiarly narrow: it assailed only the form of
the final communication and not the substance of the expert report that formed
its foundation. The Petitioner did not seek any relief against the site
inspection report in its writ petition. This strategic omission, the Court
implied, was telling. It demonstrated that the Petitioner’s grievance was not
with the technical evaluation per se, but with the brevity of the covering letter.
The Court cited the settled
principle that the doctrine of reasoned decision-making "does not mandate
prolixity or elaborate narration in every communication, particularly where the
decision is founded upon expert technical material already on record." The
test is whether the decision is arbitrary and whether the reasons can be traced
from the record. The Bench found both conditions satisfied.
This aspect of the judgment
provides crucial clarity for public authorities. It affirms that in complex,
technical regulatory processes involving prior consultation and expert
analysis, a succinct decision letter referencing earlier steps and conclusions
can comply with natural justice. The judgment cautions against a formalistic
and hyper-technical reading of the "reasons" requirement that ignores
the substantive procedural history.
3. Rejection of Vested Rights
in an Evolving Regulatory Framework
The Court delivered a firm rebuke
to the Petitioner’s underlying claim of a vested right to the original
144.53-metre height sanctioned in 2006. The Bench highlighted that:
a. The 2006 NOC had a finite
validity period which lapsed due to the Petitioner’s inaction.
b. The regulatory regime
underwent material changes in 2010 and 2015, driven by evolving aviation safety
and security imperatives.
c. Despite being fully aware of
the new restrictions, the Petitioner proceeded with construction exceeding the
permissible limits, "thereby consciously and deliberately assuming the
attendant risks and consequences."
The Court held that in such
circumstances, "the authorities cannot be compelled… to revive, resurrect,
or extend benefits flowing from an obsolete regulatory framework, particularly
when any such course would be fundamentally inconsistent with, and indeed
inimical to, the safety-oriented policies and norms currently governing the
field." This is a powerful statement underscoring the primacy of public
safety in regulatory enforcement and the limited scope for equitable relief
when a party knowingly constructs in violation of extant law.
Conclusion and Implications
for Legal Practice
The Division Bench’s judgment is
a seminal contribution to Indian administrative law, offering several key
takeaways for legal practitioners:
1. Strength of the Deference
Doctrine: The judgment solidifies the high threshold for challenging
technical determinations of expert bodies like the AAI. Lawyers representing
clients against such agencies must focus their arguments on procedural
unreasonableness, manifest arbitrariness, or mala fides, rather than attempting
a merits-based technical rebuttal in court. Relying on conflicting private
expert reports is a strategy of limited utility.
2. Holistic View of
"Reasons": For lawyers advising regulatory bodies, the judgment
offers a defensible framework for decision-making. It underscores the
importance of maintaining a clear, transparent, and participatory process. If
the process is robust and well-documented, the final decision communication can
be concise. The "reasons" are embedded in the process itself.
Conversely, for petitioners, a challenge based solely on the brevity of a final
order letter is unlikely to succeed if a substantive antecedent process exists.
3. No Grandfathering of Rights
Against Safety Regulations: The judgment makes it clear that permissions
under old regulations do not create perpetual or vested rights, especially when
the regulatory change is motivated by enhanced safety concerns. Developers and
infrastructure companies must be acutely aware of the temporal limits of
approvals and the risks of proceeding with construction in the face of changed,
more restrictive rules.
4. Strategic Litigation Choices
Matter: The Court’s observation regarding the Petitioner’s failure to
challenge the foundational expert report was significant. It highlights that
litigation strategy in judicial review matters must be comprehensive. A
piecemeal challenge that leaves the core technical determination untouched
while attacking the form of its communication is fraught with risk.
In conclusion, Airports Authority
of India v. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
masterfully balances the need for judicial oversight of administrative power
with the necessity of respecting institutional expertise in specialised
domains. It reinforces that in the high-stakes arena of aviation safety, the
court’s role is that of a procedural guardian, not a technical co-pilot. The
skyline may be litigious, but the primacy of safety in the airspace remains
non-negotiable.
Case Heading:
Airports Authority of India v.
Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., LPA 1168/2024
& LPA 63/2025, Delhi High Court, Judgment dated December 24, 2025.
0 Comments