In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a crucial judgement was passed regarding the challenge to territorial jurisdiction in a legal case. The case involves complex legal arguments regarding the authority to adjudicate on certain matters. Stay informed about the court’s decision on the matter of Jurisdictional Challenge.
Facts
- RIICO approved the building plan for construction on the subject Plot up to three floors in January 2021.
- Subsequently, on 18 November 2021, RIICO allowed the construction of a multistorey building with a maximum height of 30.78 meters from the plinth level.
- The subject Plot is located at an elevated ground at the foot of Jhalana hills with a standard sea level of 409.51 meters AMSL.
- The building achieved a height of 445.5 meters after including mumty and overhead water tank.
- The subject Plot is surrounded by Jhalana hills, with the nearest top elevation at approximately 517.39 meters.
- The Petitioner applied for a height clearance of 461 meters AMSL in September 2023 and filed an appeal with AAI in October 2023.
- The building constructed by the Petitioner consists of seven floors as per the sanctioned building plan.
- The height clearance application under Rule 5 of the Ministry of Civil Aviation was rejected.
Arguments
- Petitioner filed the writ petition to direct the Appellate Committee, AAI to grant a personal hearing before deciding the appeal.
- Petitioner challenges the vires of Clause 6.2 of the Circular in the alternative.
- Petitioner requested the Appellate Committee to consider the appeal applying Shielding Criteria and after conducting an Aeronautical Study.
- Apprehension that the Committee will reject the appeal without conducting an Aeronautical Study due to existing building height exceeding permissible limit.
- Aeronautical Study by ICAO is recognized as a procedure for determining permissible building heights without affecting aircraft safety.
- Petitioner seeks direction to conduct Aeronautical Study at their cost and present it during the appeal process.
- Reason for approaching the Court is the prerequisite in the Circular that requires demolition of existing structures beyond permissible height limit for an appeal to be considered.
- Appeal is currently pending adjudication.
- Appellate Committee, AAI will grant a personal hearing to the Petitioner before deciding the appeal.
- Contentions raised in the petition can be agitated before the Appellate Committee.
- Petitioner reserved the right to raise all grounds including the challenge to Clause 6.2 of the Circular before the Appellate Committee.
- The Petitioner has available an alternative for appeal until October 2023.
- The present writ petition is not liable to be entertained due to the appeal being filed.
- Prayer for conducting an Aeronautical Study and challenging Clause 6.2 of the Circular can be raised in the appeal.
Analysis
- The respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the lack of territorial jurisdiction in regards to the maintainability of the petition before this Court.
- The respondent argues that the Court does not have the appropriate jurisdiction to hear this case.
- This objection is crucial as it questions whether the Court has the authority to adjudicate on the matter.
- The lack of territorial jurisdiction could impact the overall validity of the petition and subsequent legal proceedings.
Decision
- The rights and contentions of both parties, including the issue of territorial jurisdiction, are kept open.
- The present petition is disposed of with the recording of the submission of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
- An oral hearing will be granted to the Petitioner by the Appellate Committee before deciding the appeal.
- Pending applications are disposed of.
Case Title: M/S RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4311-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-3629/2024
