IndiGo, SpiceJet To Shift Operations Partially To IGI Terminal-2 As Delhi HC Upholds DIAL’s Public Interest Over Airlines’ Commercial

IndiGo Airlines will have to shift operation of its flights, to and fro Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru to Terminal-2 of the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport with the Delhi High Court junking its challenge to the directions of DIAL while observing that traffic load at Terminal-1 was much beyond its capacity and such shifting was in the larger public interest.

SpiceJet, which was later impleaded as party in the matter, was also denied any relief.

Justice AK Chawla dismissed the petition moved by Interglobe Aviation Ltd, which provides services in the name of IndiGo, challenging various directions/ communication from DIAL between September and October 2017, directing the airlines to operate its flights to and fro Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru w.e.f. January 4, 2018, from Terminal-2 of IGI.

However, keeping in mind that the deadline for beginning the operations of IndiGo and SpiceJet from Terminal-2 in terms of the impugned communication is set to expire on January 4, 2018, the court extended the time provided to IndiGo and SpiceJet to shift their part operations till February 15, 2018.

It is also directed that, in the event, IndiGo and SpiceJet make a request for shifting of operations of their flights other than the sectors Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru, within seven days, the same shall be considered by DIAL.

The court held, “None of the issues sought to be agitated by 'IndiGo' can be said to be in the larger public interest, which is sought to be pursued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and 'DIAL'. There is no denial of the fact that the traffic load of Terminal-1 was much beyond its capacity even as on 31.8.2017.

“IndiGo's assertion of passengers' inconvenience on account of shifting of arrival and departure from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2, as its flights carry both inbound and outbound passengers, feeding IndiGo's entire network to/fro from Delhi, is more suggestive of its own commercial interests and its desire to operate from only one Terminal and that too, Terminal-1, inasmuch as, the capacity of Terminal-2 at the given time was 12 mppa (million passengers per annum) as against IndiGo's traffic load of 16.1 mppa, which is estimated to be 18.1 mppa during the financial year 2017-18”.

The plea of passengers' inconvenience agitated by IndiGo therefore, does not hold much water, said Justice Chawla while adding, “Be that as it may, passengers' convenience and security is much of the concern of 'DIAL' than any airline. Any impact on the efficiency and increase in cost of the operations of the flights, in the given scenario, when the 'DIAL' requires shifting of some operations for the purposes of renovations and expansion with a view to decongest Terminal-1 in the interest of public safety and safety of flight operations, becomes irrelevant”.

During the hearing, IndiGo’s counsel senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi contended that DIAL had failed to adhere to a fair, transparent and balanced approach, in arriving at the decision to safeguard the interest of the public and the concerned airlines, and, that, it was unilateral, unreasonable and unrealistic.

It had also contended that splitting of operations of selective airlines, constituted an abuse of authority given by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to DIAL vide letter dated June 14, 2017, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

IndiGo also contended that permitting GoAir to shift its entire operations from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2 w.e.f. October 29, 2017, and at the same time, directing the other two i.e. IndiGo and Spicejet, to relocate and split operations by shifting flights on sectors Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru from Terminal-1 to Terminal-2 was wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and malafide.

At this, GoAir’s counsel senior advocate Darpan Wadhwa assisted by advocate Meghna Mishra (Partner) and Ankit Rajgharia (senior associate) at Karanjawala & Co. submitted that since GoAir has only approximately 4 million passengers per annum (mppa), it has shifted completely to T-2 on DIAL’s instructions and should not be burdened with any other movement.

In the instant case, the court noted that at first, DIAL had asked SpiceJet, IndiGo and GoAir to arrive at a consensus on what flights will be shifted to terminal 2, but they failed to do so. After IndiGo and SpiceJet remained adamant, DIAL asked them to shift particular flight operations to T-2.

IndiGo asserted that such decision causes complete confusion and inconvenience to passengers and virtually, has the effect of destroying the business of the airline, which has built its reputation as the most efficient airline over the last 11 years.

Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for SpiceJet contended that while there were difficulties in operating the flights from Terminal-2 with the paraphernalia presently provided, it was totally opposed to IndiGo operating from Terminal-1 exclusively, inasmuch as, it would be anticompetitive.

DIAL, on the other hand, submitted that during the period of re-development of Terminal-1, it would reduce boarding gates from 15 to 10 and aircraft parking stand from 55 to 33, bringing down the capacity of Terminal-1 to 13 mppa and with additional measures, the capacity can be brought upto maximum of 17 mppa.

It said as IndiGo's traffic in financial year 2017-18, is estimated at 18.1 mppa approx., IndiGo cannot operate entirely either out of Terminal-1 (capacity of 17 mppa) or Terminal-2 (with a capacity of 12 mppa).

DIAL also submitted that, even with the shifting of operations of GoAir to Terminal-2, the traffic at Terminal-1 is expected to be approx. 23 mppa, which would be in excess of maximum existing capacity of 20 mppa, which requires to be further reduced to between 13 to 17 mppa.

DIAL also contended that peak fog season in January causes flight delays, resulting in an increased pressure on the infrastructure of the terminal, and endangers the safety and security of the passengers as well as the flights operations and therefore, IndiGo's financial concerns cannot take priority over public interest of development.

Read the Judgment Here