synopsis writ petition - west

7/29/2019 Synopsis Writ Petition - West

1/21

1

Synopsis

The Petitioner by way of the present writ petition being filed in

public interest, seeks to bring to the attention of this Honble Court,

the fraudulent, deceptive and corrupt acts by the authorities

representing the Government of India, whereby there has been a

grant of largesse of national asset in favour of a foreign airline

(Etihad Airways) resulting in undue enrichment and enormous

pecuniary advantage to such foreign airline at the cost and expense

of the public, national and domestic airlines as well as airports. In

order to facilitate the execution of this colossal fraud on the Indian

exchequer, the foreign airline (Etihad Airways) has agreed to

guarantee personal loans as well as pay a premium towards its

foreign investment in a domestic airlines - Jet Airways. Such grant of

largesse is in the form of an unprecedented increase of capacity

entitlements through execution of Bilateral/ MoU in favour of Abu

Dhabi under existing Air Service Agreement between Government of

India and United Arab Emirates. The actions of the authorities from

the execution of the Bilateral to the unprecedented haste in order to

assist the realisation of wrongful gains by the facilitator are writ large

with acts of collusion and abuse of position.

The Petitioner challenges such arbitrary, irrational and malafide

act of grant of largesse in the form of Bilateral and by way of the

present petition seeks an investigation under the supervision of this


2/21

2

Honble Court into the matters of national and public interest, namely

execution of bilateral, enrichment of foreign party at the cost of the

Indian exchequer, diversion of benefits to facilitator as well as the

antecedents of the facilitator; in order for the determination of

complicity of those involved and ultimately the prosecution of those

public servants who abused their position of authority as being guilty

for offences under applicable laws, including the offence of criminal

misconduct in terms of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988

The issues arise in the context of air service access and

capacity entitlements that are typically defined at country level, and

India has exchanged air access and capacity rights through

execution of Bilaterals/ MoUs with more than 100 countries.

However, as a departure from accepted practice, United Arab

Emirates (UAE) seems to have been accorded a special status as

India has executed multiple Bilaterals/ MoUs under a single Air

Service Agreement for exchange of access and capacity rights with

each emirate of UAE i.e. Dubai, Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah and Abu

Dhabi. It is noteworthy, that Emirates Airlines (state airline of Dubai)

is being called the national airline of India, as it operates more

flights and carries more passengers to and from India than Air India,

our national carrier. The fact that more than 70% of the passengers

from India carried by Emirates Airlines travel to points beyond Dubai


3/21

3

on the Emirate network has significantly contributed to Dubais

development as an International hub.

In the aforesaid background, on 24.04.2013 a Memorandum of

Understanding was executed between the Governments of India and

UAE granting an unprecedented, arbitrary, irrational and

unsustainable manifold increase of upto 50,000 seats per week (i.e.

additional 36,670 seats per week over and above existing 13,330

seats per week) in capacity entitlement to Abu Dhabi (an emirate of

UAE) for the benefit of its state owned airline Etihad Airways.

Additionally third country code sharing and domestic code sharing

was allowed. It is the Petitioners case that this increase of capacity

entitlement together with code sharing permission was made with the

underlying intention to grossly and unjustly enrich the foreign airline

for collateral purposes and in the process encourage a foreign

investment into a private domestic airline Jet Airways, that acted as

a facilitator. The grant of such largesse is otherwise malafide, illegal

and contrary to national and public interest as it results in creation of

hurdles to the recovery and health of the national airlines as well as

directly impedes the growth of domestic airports into international

hubs.

It is the Petitioners understanding that the benefit to Etihad

Airways from increase in capacity entitlements/ access, together with

third country and domestic code sharing through the execution of the


4/21

4

Bilateral/ MoU, can be reasonably estimated at about Rs. 9,524

crores per annum. Abu Dhabi sought through the Bilateral/ MoU

dated 24.04.2013 to overnight emulate the success of Dubais

emergence as an international hub on the strength of its Emirates

airlines and the gradual increase in capacity entitlements via

Bilaterals executed in its favour over the years. Whereas, as a

consequence of the very same Bilateral/ MoU dated 24.04.2013 a

reasonable estimate of losses that would be incurred by the Indian

national carrier Air India would be about Rs. 2,555 crores per

annum and the losses estimated by other domestic airlines would be

about Rs. 773 crores per annum. It is shocking that on one hand the

Government of India undertakes to infuse Rs. 30,000 crores into Air

India for its revival, and on the other hand executes with deliberate,

malafide intent and collusion Bilaterals which would bring to naught

and waste such infusion of public funds. The losses to major Indian

airports such as Delhi and Mumbai, which may lose their status as

hubs with reduced passenger flows are otherwise unquantifiable,

especially in view of a clear hub strategy of Air India with Delhi as a

chosen hub. Consequently, the currently profit making Airports

Authority of India (AAI) will also face immense hardship as they are

dependent on revenue share from the Delhi and Mumbai Airports not

only for further growth but also for their day to day operations. Thus,

while the only beneficiaries of the Bilateral/ MoU are Etihad Airways

and the facilitator - Jet Airways, the same is clearly at the


5/21

5

tremendous cost and expense of the Indian exchequer. This is a

mega fraud in thousands of crores each year.

The Office of the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG) had in its

report titled Performance Audit Report on Civil Aviation in India of

August 2011 has in Chapter 7 Conclusion and Recommendations

therein, come to a conclusion (at Pg 115 therein) that

The current dismal state of affairs of the merged entity Air

India is a combination of a multiplicity of factors such as

..

o a liberalised policy on bilateral entitlements for

international air travel introduced by GoI without

affording adequate time to AIL/ IAL to set their house in

order and gear up for a highly competitive environment,

& subsequent rights being liberally approved to foreign

carriers without any quid pro quo to Indian Carriers.

Also in its examination of the roles of the Government/ Ministry

of Civil Aviation, the CAG report concludes (at Pg. 119 therein) that:

o Freeze on bilateral entit lements to countries/airl ines

predominant ly ut i l is ing 6th

f reedom traff ic Most of the

liberalised entitlements for bilateral rights granted toforeign

airlines (especially in Dubai, Bahrain, Qatar and other Gulf/

SE Asian countries)has been utilised for 6th freedom traffic

and not for genuine traffic to the other country.AI and other

private Indian airlines are handicapped by the lack of


6/21

6

adequate hub facilities and other factors (e.g. lack of

agreement for change in gauge at Dubai Airport) from

competing effectively with other predominantly 6th freedom

carriers (e.g.Emirates). Till India has its own effective and

efficient hubs and AI/ other Indian carriersare able to exploit

them effectively (say within 3 to 5 years), entitlements for

airlines/countries predominantly dependent on 6th freedom

traffic (notably Dub ai, Bahrain and o ther Gulf countr ies

in the f i rst instance)should be strictly frozen by MoCA; if

possible,subject to diplomatic and other considerations.

Options for rollback of excessentitlement granted beyond

genuine traffic requirements may also be explored by

MoCA.

Thus, the Bilateral/ MoU signed on 24.04.2013 was contrary to

the findings and recommendations of the CAG in August, 2011

especially when the CAG recommended not only freezing of such

bilaterals with Gulf countries but also reassessment and rollback of

concluded agreements.

Further, while the recommendations of CAG are pending

examination before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the

Parliament, the Respondents for extraneous reasons decided not to

wait for the final report of the PAC and have instead proceeded with

the fresh bilateral agreement with UAE, in complete disregard of

either the recommendations of the CAG or the authority and

consideration by the PAC.


7/21

7

The Parliaments Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism

and Culture (hereinafter PSC) comprising of thirty (30)

parliamentarian from the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha, in its

Report No. 191 dated 3rd May, 2013 has made scathing observations

on the execution of the MoU/ Bilateral with Abu Dhabi, granting

unprecedented capacity entitlements while detailing that the same

was not in the interest of the nation and the public. The PSC has

inter alia reported that:

81. The Committee understands that the Government has

increased the bilateral weekly seats between India and Abu

Dhabi to 36,670 seats a week from 13,330 at present. The

Committee also notes that the announcement has come in the

backdrop of Ethihad paying huge premium of 32% over the

market price to pick up just 245 equity in Jet Airways.

82. The increase in bilateral capacity put the premium that

Ethihad paid in perspective. The Committee is aware that

bilateral negotiations between two countries for increasing

airline seats take place only when the existing allotments

become insufficient. The Committee understands that

concerned domestic Airlines have not exhausted those allotted

seats. In such a situation, the Committee is surprised to see

this increase in the bilateral to 36,670 seats a week by the

Government. Prima facie this move appears to facilitate one


8/21

8

airline to strike a deal with a foreign Airline for its stake sale at

a huge premium. The Committee feels that the huge premium

could be a backhanded way of obtaining access to the huge

Civil Aviation market in India.

83. The increase in the bilateral is questionable especially in

view of the fact that the Indian carries are not in a position to

use increased seat capacity due to fleet constraint. In such a

situation, the foreign airline may try to catch up passenger

traffic headed to destinations in North America, Europe, Africa

and Middle East resulting in huge losses to Air India and

various airports of India.

.

88. The Committee feels that creating hubs needs time and

also a home carrier with a critical size to be able to sustain the

hub. Air India has just started to create a hub in Delhi as its

chosen hub, which needs to be encouraged/ supported in its

endeavour. The development of events will, no doubt, have

adverse impact on Air Indias efforts in this regard.

89. The Committee finds that Air India is already struggling to

make a turn around as Indian passengers prefer to travel via

the foreign hubs. Rs. 30,000/- crores of tax payers money is


9/21

9

being pumped into it by the Government to keep it afloat and

signs of certain turnaround is already visible.

90. . If the Ministry supports the development of more and

more hubs outside India, thousands of crores of taxpayers

money will go waste, not to mention the investment of

thousands of crores made by private enterprise along with the

Government in developing world class airports in Delhi and

other major metros.

91. The Committee, therefore, calls upon the Ministry to

reconsider the Agreement for bilateral with the UAE, which may

be kept frozen at the current level of 13,330 seats and any

bilateral may be opened only after the capacity of the Indian

carriers is increased.

.

93. The Committee recommends that the bilateral

arrangement with the Abu Dhabi may be reconsidered by the

Government to protect our national carrier and the airports of

India.

It is noteworthy that under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct

of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) the report of a

Standing Committee shall have persuasive value and shall be

treated as considered advice given by the Committee.


10/21

10

The saga of corruption, collusion and fraud was not just limited

to the execution of the Bilateral/ MoU on 24.04.2013. In fact, a mere

perusal of the dates leading upto the signing of the Bilaterals

demonstrates how the active corruption and collusion was

undertaken. The Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG) meeting on

18.04.2013 on the negotiation mandate for the execution of the

Bilateral clearly evidences one of the underlying objectives of the

Bilateral being to enable Etihad Airways to invest into Jet Airways.

The IMG however approved a negotiating mandate for enhancement

of total entitlements upto a maximum of 40,000 seats per week i.e.

additional entitlement of 26,670 seats per week together with existing

13,330 seats per week and not 40,000 as demanded by Etihad

Airways. Additionally, the IMG rejected Etihad Airways demand for

third country and domestic code share. Following this, a meeting

was held on 22.04.2013 of a group of Ministers under direction of the

Prime Minister consisting of Ministers of Finance, Commerce,

External Affairs and Civil Aviation, which approved a mandate

different from that given by the IMG. Eithad Airways demands for

additional 40,000 seats per week together with third country and

domestic code sharing were approved contrary to national and public

interest.

The fact is that the negotiations, meetings and discussions of

the bilateral/ MoU through which the Government of India granted a

largesse of increase of capacity entitlement upto 50,000 seats per


11/21

11

week from existing 13,330 seats per week in favour of Etihad

Airways, was undertaken in the same place i.e. Abu Dhabi and at the

same time i.e. 23-24.04.2013 as the negotiations between Etihad

Airways to invest and purchase 24% of the shareholding of Jet

Airways (India) Ltd., at an enormous premium by way of preferential

allotment. It is a matter of record that just in less than 48 hours after

the meeting of the group of Ministers which acceded to the

unrealistic demands by the Etihad Airways, the Bilateral was signed

in Abu Dhabi i.e. on the 24th of April 2013 and simultaneously the

announcement of the investment by Etihad Airways into Jet Airways

was made, i.e. on the same date, at the same time and at the same

place.

Thus, not only did the foreign airlines Etihad Airways get a

largesse in the form of unprecedented increase in capacity

entitlement for itself i.e. upto 50,000 seats per week, as well as third

country and domestic code sharing but by investing into the Indian

carrier and entering into inter-se arrangements evidencing effective

control over Jet Airways, it managed to get surrogate control and

reap the rewards from the Jet Airways share of the Indian Bilateral,

thereby effectively getting approximately 90,000 seats per week to

and from India in contrast to the genuine entitlement of merely

13,300 seats.


12/21

12

While, the Government of India has as an afterthought sought

to explain the twin fold transactions of Bilateral and foreign

investment into Jet Airways as a coincidence and being otherwise

unrelated. However, media reports suggest that the twin fold

transactions were intrinsically related to the extent that if the Bilateral

had not been agreed exactly the way Etihad wanted, the MoU

between Etihad and Jet Airways for equity investment at huge

premium may not have materialised. Further Media reports also

suggest that the Indian delegation for Bilateral talks with UAE arrived

at Abu Dhabi on 21.04.2013 even before the final approval of the

Government of India on the negotiating mandate which came

through a meeting of four Cabinet Ministers on 22.04.2013, thereby

indicating that the approval itself was a mere formality and was

otherwise pre-determined.

The Petitioner has in his possession and submits for the

consideration of this Honble Court, documents belying the

explanation of coincidence and demonstrating the abuse of position

by the public servants in the Government of India to obtain for Etihad

Airways the valuable and pecuniary advantage of unprecedented

capacity entitlements as well as secure wrongful gains through

receipt of premium by way of foreign investment to private

individuals, including the mysterious owners of Jet Airways, without

any public interest. Such persons/ public servants are liable to be

prosecuted for corruption under the laws of India.


13/21

13

In terms of the applicable law in India, foreign investment into

Jet Airways required conformance of sector specific guidelines such

that the existent investment ought to be that of an NRI i.e. a Non

Resident Indian. However, the company Jet Airways (India) Limited

was controlled and managed through a tax haven company - M/s

Tail Winds Limited, which is incorporated in the Isle of Man. The

Indian Government has been ignoring the fact that Tail Winds is an

Overseas Corporate Body i.e. OCB, which since 16.09.2003 stood

de-recognised and permissions for investment made by it were

withdrawn under applicable law. While, various regulatory authorities

have been giving opportunity and advice time and again for Tail

Winds to come clean with its ownership, details of funding, etc and

regularise itself, the matter has dragged on over the last ten (10)

years. It is a matter of fact, that not only has the Government of India

over the past many years been unable to ascertain the beneficial

ownership of the controlling company Tail Winds, rather the nature

and source of funding has remained a mystery. One, Mr. Naresh

Goyal, a Non-Resident Indian has been claiming to exercise

authority over M/s Tail Winds Limited under alleged nomination/

ownership. However, if Mr. Goyal desired any foreign investment into

Jet Airways, he was required by law to at the first instance regularise

the ownership by purchase of Jet shares owned by Tail Wind into his

own name i.e. convert the ownership by a derecognized OCB into

that of an NRI.


14/21

14

The Petitioner has documentary evidence to support that

HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, in May 2013 had provided loans of

an unspecific amount to the Promoter Shareholder - Mr. Naresh

Goyal based on purported pledge of shares by Tail Winds for

purchase of securities, foreign exchange transactions etc., through a

Third Party Pledge Agreement. Thereafter, HSBC Securities and

Capital Markets Private Limited being the Trading Member with SEBI

and Indian Stock Exchanges assisted the purchase by Mr. Naresh

Goyal of Jet Airways shares held by Tail Winds. Jet Airways had

applied and taken permission for such transfer/ purchase in the

month of January/ February, 2013 itself. It is now, through

revelations from the inter-se agreements between Jet Airways and

Etihad, it is learnt that it was in fact Etihad Airways, which provided

the guarantee to HSBC for its lending of US $ 300 million to Mr.

Goyal to enable him to commence his attempts to regularize the

ownership of Jet Airways. Thus, evidently Etihad Airways had

bankrolled Mr. Goyal in early 2013 itself to facilitate the grant of the

largesse of unprecedented increase in capacity entitlements by the

Government of India. The collusion is again writ large from the fact

that not only previously, Jet Airways had earlier put down a joint

position paper for CIIs National Committee on Civil Aviation

opposing even the existing bilateral requirement of 13,330 seats with

Etihad, rather had limited its own requirements in the sector to about

6000 seats per week. However, consequent to the finance secured


15/21

15

through Etihads guarantees, Mr. Goyal through Jet Airways

demanded an increase of 40,000 seats per weeks to the

Government of India.

In this context, it becomes essential to investigate and

understand as to who is the real owner of Tail Winds Limited? A fact

that even till date, while considering the proposal for foreign

investment, the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (i.e.

DIPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, made a preliminary

observation on 29/30.07.2013 that the details of shareholding pattern

of OCB (M/s Tailwinds) had not been submitted. It is equally

astonishing that while, Mr. Naresh Goyal declares himself to be an

Indian national albeit a Non-Resident Indian for tax purposes (also to

be eligible for investment as an NRI under the applicable FDI policy);

the same Mr. Naresh Goyal in the regulatory filings of M/s Tail Winds

Limited for years including 1997 has been declared to be an Arab

National.

The requirement to investigate and lift the veil becomes

paramount given the fact that in the past, when Mr. Goyal had sought

to participate in a proposed disinvestment/ privatisation of the

national airlines Air India, the Government of India had sought to

enquire into his antecedents as well as source of funding. At that

stage there were serious observations by the Intelligence Bureau (IB)

to the effect that Gulf Airways and Kuwait Airways (erstwhile


16/21

16

shareholders of M/s Tail Winds) were holding 20% shares in a

benami capacity.

Additionally, in the context of national security, it is also

pertinent to note that approval of the Ministry of Defence was never

sought in the entire process of consideration and examination of the

foreign investment proposal by Etihad Airways to invest into Jet

Airways. This failure is irrational and arbitrary given the fact that

several of domestic airports like Pune, Bagdogra, Chandigarh,

Srinagar, Agra, Goa, Jodhpur, etc are defence airfields, where Jet

Airways may be flying. Whereas, in terms of Government of India

policy, foreign airlines require prior approval from the Ministry of

Defence if they seek to use any defence airfield. Also, in the past,

security concerns in respect of investment by foreign companies as

well as their employment of foreign nationals in the civil aviation

sector have been found to be sensitive and have been rejected on

many occasions due to security concerns. The Petitioner believes

that by allowing an airline of the Gulf/ Middle East to invest in a

domestic airline, the Government of India is being a mute spectator

to a surrogate entry of foreign airline on defence airfields,

overlooking essential security concerns.

The Petitioner wrote to the Prime Minister of India on 29 th May,

2013 stating his concerns of the collusion and requesting his

intervention in relation to the illegalities. The same resulted in a


17/21

17

public outcry and concerns were voiced in the media in respect of

roles, responsibilities and functioning of those holding the highest

offices in the Government of India in respect of grant of the final

approval on 22.04.2013 for the negotiating mandate of the Bilateral.

The Prime Ministers Office was pleased to issue a Press Release on

02.07.2013 describing inter alia the Prime Ministers version of the

inter-ministerial discussions on the subject of bilateral. The Press

Release states that As far as the Bilateral Air Services Agreement

was concerned, the Cabinet Note was asked to be kept in abeyance

till responses on letters with complaints on the agreement and on

security concerns were received while drawing reference to the

PMO Note dated 13.06.2013 where under Para 2(ii) it is noted that

Subsequently, in the interest of wider consultations and greater

transparency, the Prime Minister directed that the matter be brought

to the Cabinet for a decision before operationalizing any agreements

that may be arrived at by the Government with the other party. This

fact may be incorporated in the Note and the Note may be brought to

the Cabinet and not to CCEA.

Therefore, in a departure from accepted practice, where in the

past only the approval of the Ministry of Civil Aviation was required to

operationalize any Bilateral/ MoU, the office of the Prime Minister

sought a wider consultative process through the cabinet prior to

operationalize the malafide, arbitrary and irrational Bilateral which

was contrary to the findings of the CAG, recommendations of the


18/21

18

Parliamentary Standing Committee and otherwise intended to

unjustly enrich a foreign airline and provide wrongful gains to a

private domestic airline, at the cost of national as well as public

interests. It is therefore, imperative that an independent investigation

under supervision of this Honble Court is directed and brought to its

logical end.

The Petitioner further seeks to bring to the attention of this

Honble Court the sequence of events demonstrating the

unprecedented haste and urgency shown by the various

departments and organs of the Government of India to give effect to

the foreign investment proposal made by Etihad Airways to invest in

equity of Jet Airways. Initially, the Foreign Investment Promotion

Board (i.e. FIPB) in its meeting on 14.06.2013 had expressed

serious reservations in respect of the non-compliance of the

investment proposal to the issues of substantial ownership and

effective control being continued to be held by Indian nationals. The

FIPB had emphasized on the requirement to carefully determine both

the issues. It is uncharacteristic for the Foreign Investment

Promotion Board (i.e. FIPB) to meet twice in a month, however the

FIPB met on 6 July, 2013 and then again on 29

July, 2013. As widely

reported in the media the validity of Jet-Etihad deal was to expire on

31st July, 2013. Furthermore, this deal was listed as an item to be

considered in the meeting much before the promoter and investor

filed their compliance (which was done only on 25 July, 2013).


19/21

19

Normally, the compliance of the entities involved ought to have been

examined and only then the meeting fixed. However, for reasons

best known to the Government they adopted a reverse strategy

thereby pushing the appraising agencies to appraise the deal in

undue haste leading to serious non-application of mind.

The Petitioner has been writing to the Prime Minister with

reference to the functioning of authorities, whose recent actions have

demonstrated the extent of collusion between the authorities and the

private beneficiaries. The authorities adopted a new found

consultative approach, where instead of rejecting the non-compliant

foreign investment application, they entered into dialogue to assist

Etihad Airways/ Jet Airways to provide multiple versions and

revisions of the inter-se agreements, while giving suggestions to

wean out issues by clever drafting. It is an abuse of authority

actionable under applicable criminal jurisprudence, when certain

departments raise objections on transfer of effective control on a

plain reading of the commercial cooperation agreements, instead of

rejecting the application per se, the parties are advised to execute

such agreements at a later date in order to avoid scrutiny and

rejection. The media reports suggest that the FIPB had on

29.07.2013 recommended the granting of a conditional approval to

the foreign investment by Etihad Airways in Jet Airways. The final

approving authority in the present case (consequent to extent of

investment involved) is the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs


20/21

20

i.e. the CCEA. The collusion and criminal misconduct is further

evident from the fact that the authorities including the CCEA,

Competition Commission of India (CCI), SEBI are failing to consider

the Jet-Etihad transaction under an amended definition of control

which was notified on 22.08.2013. In the present petition, the

Petitioner is relying upon the sequence of events of consideration by

the public authorities of the FDI investment by Etihad in Jet Airways,

only for the purpose of establishing that the same warrant an

investigation under the aegis of this Honble Court, as it is apparent

that the transaction was intended for realization of wrongful gains to

the facilitator that assisted in the illegal execution of the bilateral. The

Petitioner in the present petition is not challenging the grant of FDI

approval by the CCEA to the investment by Etihad into Jet Airways.

The Petitioner specifically reserves its right to do so separately.

On 04.09.2013, media reports state that the MoU/ Bilateral

dated 24.04.2013 has received the post-facto approval of the Union

Cabinet in a meeting chaired by the Prime Minister. Even the

democratic framework under the Constitution of India does not permit

corrupt, collusive, illegal diversion of public funds from transfer of

national assets to be regularised through a vote by Cabinet

ministers.

Therefore, the recent events, including unprecedented haste,

lack of transparency, arbitrariness and bias in the consideration of


21/21

21

the Jet-Etihad foreign investment clearly evidences the apparent

collusion and abuse of position by public servants, to subserve the

illegal grant of largesse (Bilateral) and unjust enrichment of foreign

airline Etihad Airways as facilitated by Tail Winds/ Naresh Goyal

through realisation of wrongful gains by guarantee of loan by Etihad

as well as receipt of premium for share purchase under foreign

investment; while ignoring the recommendations of the CAG,

Parliamentary Standing Committee, and while acting in concert to the

detriment of national airlines as well as domestic airports. The recent

events further demonstrate a lack of will and failure by the head of

the Government to exercise authority for taking remedial and

corrective actions. In view of the above, it is in the interest of justice,

nation, public and security that this Honble Court intervenes and

prohibits the Respondents from undertaking any further steps for

operationalization of the Bilateral and directs investigation under the

supervision of this Honble Court, and consequential prosecution of

those guilty in accordance with due process of law.

synopsis writ petition - west

Documents