IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16644 of 2010(E)
1. IATA AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (IAA)
... Petitioner
2. OSAKA AIR TRAVELS PRIVATE LTD
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
3. IATA INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS COUNTRY
4. JOINT DIECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.16644 OF 2010(E)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the
complaint mainly raised by the Sr. counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that despite having made Ext.P7(a) and Ext.P8
representations to the 2nd respondent, seeking steps for the
enforcement of Ext.P6 order issued by him, there has not been
any response to the representations.
2. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent
has required the Air Lines to comply with the requirement of Rule
135(2) of the Air Craft Rules. It is the complaint of the petitioner
that despite Ext.P6, certain Air Lines have not complied with the
same. It is stated that, pointing out this, they again approached
the 2nd respondent by filing the aforesaid representations.
3. Having regard to the nature of the grievance that is
raised, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent
to take necessary action on Exts.P7(a) and P8 representations.
This the 2nd respondent shall do with notice to the affected parties
and as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months
WPC.No. 16644/2010
:2 :
from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with
a copy of the writ petition.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/