Notification to close down HAL Airport challenged

Notification to close down HAL Airport challenged

Staff Reporter

BANGALORE: A Bangalore-based resident has become the first person to challenge in the Karnataka High Court a notification by the Centre on the closing down of the HAL Airport for commercial operations from May 22 midnight/early hours of May 23.

The notification by the Union Civil Aviation Ministry, which was gazetted by the Centre on May 16, states that the HAL Airport would be closed down on May 22 midnight simultaneously with the opening of the new international airport at Devanahalli.

The new green field airport has been constructed by Bengaluru International Airport Limited (BIAL) and the closure of the existing HAL Airport for commercial flight operations is a precondition in the agreement signed between the Centre and BIAL.

B. Krishna Bhat, one of the petitioners who had challenged the proposed closure of the HAL before the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, on Wednesday filed an interlocutory application (IA) before the High Court challenging the provisions under which the HAL Airport is sought to be closed for commercial flight operations.
Hearing

The IA has been listed for hearing on Thursday before a Division Bench comprising Justice Rammohan Reddy and Justice Jawed Rahim. The same Bench had on Tuesday heard an earlier IA by Mr. Krishna Bhat challenging the failure of the Centre, Airports Authority of India and Bengaluru International Airport Limited to place before the court details of the renegotiation relating to the closure of the HAL Airport, user development fee (UDF) and other issues.

In his IA filed on Wednesday, Mr. Bhat stated that the provisions invoked by the Civil Aviation Ministry for closing down the HAL Airport dealt with the opening of a new airport and not its closure. Moreover, sufficient notice had not been given to the parties before the notification was issued.

It said that the notification was issued under Section 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rules 11 and 78 of the Aircraft Rules 1937, as well as in deference to clause 5.5 of the Concession Agreement. The statutory provisions mentioned in these clauses do not provide for closure of an airport, it said.