DGCA Cannot Suspend Pilot's License Without Show-Cause Notice; Merely Based On FIR: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) cannot suspend a pilot's licence without issuing a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing merely because an FIR has been registered or allegations of forged documents have surfaced. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 281]

The Court clarified that the exception under Rule 19 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, permitting suspension in public interest during investigation is not attracted where the person has not been convicted and the statutory requirements of natural justice have not been followed.

A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat was dealing with a petition filed challenging a DGCA order dated 12 March 2011 suspending the petitioner's Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL). The suspension followed allegations that the licence had been obtained on the basis of forged examination records and an FIR registered in connection with a wider investigation into fraudulent pilot licences.

The petitioner contended that registration of an FIR could not by itself justify cancellation or suspension of a licence and that only a conviction could attract such consequences under the Rules. The DGCA defended its action by asserting that the petitioner had furnished forged examination results to obtain the ATPL and that suspension was necessary in the public interest.

The Court noted that before disqualifying a person from holding or obtaining a licence, the licensing authority must give the person an opportunity of being heard and must record reasons in writing. The Court found that none of these safeguards had been observed in the present case. No show-cause notice was issued, no personal hearing was granted, no forged document was identified, and the order did not even specify the duration of suspension.

“… the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to explain his version before taking the drastic step of suspension of license… prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he could not point out his side of the story and therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the order,” the Court observed.

Rejecting the DGCA's reliance on Rule 19, the Court held that the provision had been misconstrued. It observed that Rule 19, when read in its proper context, concerns situations involving conviction for contravention of the Rules and matters relating to aircraft certification and airworthiness. Since the petitioner had not been convicted, the DGCA could not invoke the “public interest” exception to bypass procedural safeguards.

Holding that the suspension order was passed in breach of the relevant rules, the DGCA's own procedures, and the principles of natural justice, the Court set aside the impugned order.

Case: Jeetendra Krishna Varma v. Director General of Civil Aviation [Writ Petition No. 3360 of 2011].

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 281

Click Here To Read/Download Order