M/s.Flytech Aviation Ltd., v. The Union of India,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-23. M/s.Flytech Aviation Ltd., v. The Union of India,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
3300 ] [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENW THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT P ETITION NO: 39428 OF 2015 Between: M/s. Flytech Aviation Ltd. , Company incorporated under lhe- Companies-Act,1956, Havind its Regd. Office at 31d and 4th floor, Nagam Towers, NTR Circle, Begumpet' Hyderabad, Represented by its E. D. Capt. K. Mamatha ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajeev Gandhi Bhavan, Safadarjung, Airport, New Delhi 2. The Airports Authority lndia, Represented by its Chairman, Safadarjung Airport, New Delhi ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased writ of to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in not implementing the '10-09-2013 decision of the 1st Respondent, dated vide No. G. 29O12l2l2O12-AAl, of even after a period of two years, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative principles 14, 19,21 and of natural apart from violation of Articles 300-4 of lustice the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to implement the directions in the said communication dated 10. 9. 20'1 3, both in letter and in spirit and refund the excess amount of Rs. 83,'1 7,627l- within such period as the Hon'ble Court. l. A.
NO: 'l OF 201S(WPMP NO:50857 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct stay of all further proceedings in Arb. App. No. 143 of 2010, pe ,r ding disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KEERTHANA REDDY FOR SRI R. S. ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Ms. N. V. R. RAJYA LAK{; . lMl, S. C. REPRESENTING SRI N. BHUJANGA RA(I, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDI, T Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI P. VIKRAM The Court made the following: ORDER wp )9428 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 39428 of 20I5 Z3'\[anuary,2026 Between: N4. /s Flytech Aviation Limited . Petitioner AND l. The Union of India, and another ...
Respondents ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that it is a company engaged in commercial pilot training and aircraft maintenance since 1996, challenges the inaction of the 2nd respondent (Airyorts Authority of India) in implementing the binding decision of the ['t respondcnt (Ministry of Civil Aviation) dated 10. 09. 2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the I't respondent's decision accepted the recommendations of an expert committee regarding fixation of lease arca and rent payable by the petitioner at Nadergul Airfield, resolving a long-standing dispute. Despite the approval by the I't respondent and the samc being placed on record before this Court in earlier proceedings, the 2nd respondent has failed to give effect to the policy, and has continued arbitration proceedings on the very same issues, contrary to statutory mandate and governmental directions. It is the grievance of the petitioner wp 39428_2015 NBK, ' .
oved that the refusal of the 2'd respondent to implement the ap r committee repoft is arbitrary, ittegal, and causing severe firr ncial loss and unceftainty, as the petitioner has already paid amounts fa,' n excess o1'what is payable undcr the approved fbrmula and is entitle,l to a substantial refund, which has been wrongfulty withheld. 2. A counter alfidavit has been filed by the 2nd re; rondent-Airports Authority of India ("AAI"), essentially contending that rI e petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of AAI land at Nadergut Airfieli since the expiry of the original lease, and theretbre the petitioner i:; liable for huge outstanding dues, damage charges, royalty, and interest. , nd the petitioner has been delaying eviction and recovery by initiating muir ple proceedings.
It is asserted that the issues olextent ofencroachment, fl> ltion ofrent, and quantification of dues are pending adjudication before e duly constituted Arbitral Tribunal appointed by this Court, and therefore t re writ petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that the dir r :tions of the l. t respondent, and the Committee report dated l0. O9. ZOl _ are inconsistent with the 2nd respondent's statutory policies and rl: rationalisation framework approved by the Board ol 2nd respondent. rnd the sarne, if implemented mechanically would cause retrospectir: rcvenue loss. According to thc 2''d respondent, the Committee's rec( mmendations on area, rates, and lormula lack a sound legal and finan,: al basis, and the recommendations ignore damage charges and royalty pavable by the petitioner, and they contradict audit observations, I rd therefore the recommendations require reconsideration by the Boarc rf 2,,d respondent or adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal. wp_39428 20r5 2.
IIeard Ms. Keerthana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. N. V. R. Rajya Lakshmi, leamed Standing Counsel representing Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, leamed Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents. Perused the record 3' At the hearing, learned counser for the petitioner praces on record a Withdrawal Memo dated 21. 0t. 2026, along with a copy of the Airports Authority of India letrer dated 22. 05. 2024, with regard . ,Terms to the of Settlement of disputes berween Airporrs Authority of India (,. AAI,') and IVVs Flytech Aviation Limited (FAL) at Nadergur Airfield,,, wherein an amicable resolution of disputes between the petitioner and the respondents is stated to have been reached by way of a One Time Settlement, upon the petitioner agreeing to remit the settlement amount to the tune of Rs. 1,03,37,239l- to the account of the 2nd respondent_AAl. 4. It is relevant to refer to paragraph No. 4 of the Withdrawal Memo dated 2l . 01. 2026, which reads as follows: "4.
lt is submitted that the petitioner, in due compliance with Clause 2(iii) of the setflement terms, has duly remitted the seftlement amount to the tune of Rs. 1,03,37,239/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lakh Thirty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty-Nine only) to the account of Respondent No. Z. Further, Respondent No. 2 has assured to enter into a Setflement Agreement and thereafter a Lease Agreement with the petitioner herein, after the withdrawal of the present Writ petition. ,, 5' Leamed counser for the petitioner submits that the writ petition mav therelore be permitted to be withdrawn in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. wp_39428_2015 N8K, ' 6. Leamed Standing Counsel does not dispute the st,l missions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner. 7. In view ol the above. the Withdrawal Memo dat: t 2l . 01 . 2026 is taken on record, and the rvrit petition is dismissed as witl-< rawn.
No costs- Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closel SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSiI STANT REGISTRAR e //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to SRI R. S. ASSOCIATES, Advocates [OPUCI 2. One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor C t neral of lndia [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI P. VIKRAIU, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MP \ t I i' I. IGH COURT rl DATEIt2310112026 i i lHl: S I i I c 7 C) r',e )q2f, 2 I 0 2 6) i, I' t i . '-c 1 orCH i ]. a i ORDER , I i I I WP. No. 3(t428 o12015 I : DISMISSING THE WR. IT PETITION AS VI ITHDRAWN WITHoUT COSTS b hv \
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.