2015 (3) TMI 1224 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of minutes - Whether minutes of meeting can override statutory regulations? - Held that - Unless the minutes of meeting resulted in a final decision taken by the competent authority in terms of Article 77(3) of the Constitution and the decision so taken is communicated to the concerned person the same was not capable of being enforced by issuing a direction in a writ petition. Without going into the merits of the matter High Court was not right in disposing of the matter in terms of the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is at liberty to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the respondents. The appellant is also at liberty to recover the arrears of landing parking or housing fees charges from the concerned respondents in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether minutes of a meeting can override statutory regulations.
2. Authority of the appellant to charge fees and detain aircraft under the AAI Act and Regulations.
3. Validity and enforceability of the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013.
4. Compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements for government decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether minutes of a meeting can override statutory regulations:
The primary issue is whether the minutes of a meeting held on 26.3.2013 can override statutory regulations, specifically Regulation 10 of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003. The appellant argued that the minutes of the meeting are merely an executive decision and cannot supersede statutory regulations. The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative instructions cannot amend or supersede statutory rules, citing precedents such as Shanti Sports Club & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. and Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2. Authority of the appellant to charge fees and detain aircraft under the AAI Act and Regulations:
The appellant, Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), is authorized under Section 22(i)(a) of the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 (AAI Act) to charge fees for landing, housing, or parking of aircraft. Regulation 10 of the AAI Regulations empowers the competent authority to detain or stop the departure of aircraft until the requisite fees or charges are paid. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant has the right to detain aircraft for non-payment of charges, irrespective of aircraft ownership.

3. Validity and enforceability of the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013:
The meeting on 26.3.2013 included representatives from various authorities and decided on the release of aircraft detained for non-payment of charges. The High Court directed the release of aircraft based on these minutes. However, the Supreme Court noted that the minutes did not constitute a general or special order by the Central Government as required under Regulation 10. The minutes lacked the necessary sanctification and concurrence from the Finance Department and were not issued in the name of the President, as mandated by Article 77 of the Constitution.

4. Compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements for government decisions:
The Supreme Court highlighted the constitutional requirements under Articles 77 and 166 for the conduct of government business. Executive actions must be taken in the name of the President or Governor and follow the rules of business. The minutes of the meeting did not meet these requirements, as they were not sanctioned by the competent authority or the Finance Department. The Court cited several precedents, including MRF Limited vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors., to emphasize the mandatory nature of these rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 could not override statutory regulations without proper compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements. The appellant was granted the liberty to invoke the bank guarantee and recover dues in accordance with the law.