Bombay HC seeks MIAL, Collector’s response on actions against structures near airport flouting height norms

The MIAL filed an affidavit through its Deputy Assistant Manager Janani Vivek in reply to a PIL by advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, stating that the “obstacle survey” of 2010-11 showed that there were 137 obstacles including buildings/structures in approach surfaces of all runways. It said that the details were submitted to the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) for action of removal of the same.

Only six out of 110 owners, against whom the DGCA had issued notices, complied with the same and removed obstacles. As per 2015-16 survey, 498 obstacles including buildings and structures were found along with 352 trees in approach and transitional surfaces of all runways.

However, the court noted that it did not find any material  showing compliance of removing obstacles which were found in the 2015-16 survey.

The MIAL claimed that in May, 2019, it provided a consolidated list of 56 obstacles, out of which the developers or owners removed nine.  Moreover, owners of nearly 18 obstacles have challenged final orders of DGCA in various writ pleas before the High Court and pending hearing, the court has granted interim relief to them of no coercive steps by the authorities against them.

The MIAL further said that it is in a process of preparing a list of obstacles as per its 2020-21 survey and it is continuously providing full and complete details of all obstacles to DGCA and has complied with its duties and obligations under The Aircraft (Demolition of obstructions caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994.

However, Shenoy argued that no action had been taken between the years 2017 and 2022 and once the obstacles were found and details were submitted to DGCA, the Airport Authority of India (AAI) was required to ensure prompt action against such structures, which is not the case. The authorities were merely passing the buck to each other, he said.

The lawyer representing DGCA said that as per Aircraft Rules, if the owner fails to comply with directions in final order within 60 days of such an order, the MIAL can report the matter to district collector, who can take an action of demolishing the building or tree or reduction in height of building/structure.

The Court asked the petitioner to make the state government and district collector as parties to PIL “for effective implementation of the Rules.”

The bench expressed displeasure over obstacles not being removed and directed the MIAL to file an affidavit by June 8 informing as to the number of cases wherein the district collector was requested by it to take action against the obstacles as per Aircraft Rules.

The Court also granted two weeks thereafter to the state and the district collector to file their replies to MIAL’s affidavit and posted further hearing in PIL to June 27.