Mr. Digvijay Rai, Standing Counsel for AAI with Mr. Archit Mishra and Abhishek Singh v. SHRISTI CORPORATION LTD & ORS. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

Judgment

1. These Letters Patent Appeals1, filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, arise from and challenge the Judgment dated 15.10.20242 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11422/2019 titled ‘Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Airports Authority of India & Ors.’. 2. The said Writ Petition had been instituted by Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the Communication/Order vide reference no. CHQ File: AAI/20012/21/2011-ARI (NOC); Case No. ER/241/2010; NOCAS ID: KOLK/EAST/B/111912/017 dated 1 LPAs 2 Impugned Judgement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:55:24 LPA 1168/2024 & LPA63/2025 Page 2 of 28

08.03.20193, whereby the Airport Authority of India rejected the request of the Petitioner for the Higher Top Elevation of Tower-II. 3. For the sake of brevity, clarity, and uniformity, the Appellant in LPA 1168/2024, Airports Authority of India, shall hereinafter be referred to as “AAI”, and the Appellant in LPA 63/2025, Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., shall hereinafter be referred to as “Shristi Infrastructure/Petitioner”. 4. LPA 1168/2024 has been preferred by AAI, challenging the Impugned Judgement, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the communication dated 08.03.2019 passed by the AAI. 5. LPA 63/2025 has been

filed by Shristi Infrastructure challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment, particularly those contained in paragraphs 8.2, 9 and 10, and seeking their setting aside. BRIEF FACTS: 6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the institution of the present LPAs are as follows: I. Shristi Infrastructure undertook the development of a two-tower complex comprising Tower-I and Tower-II at Mouza Jatragachi, AA-II/CBD/2, Action Area-II, New Town, Rajarhat, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, located approximately

7.06 kilometres from the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata. Owing to its proximity to the aerodrome, Shristi Infrastructure was required to obtain a No 3 Impugned communication dated 08.03.2019 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:55:24 LPA 1168/2024 & LPA63/2025 Page 3 of 28 Objection Certificate4 under Section 9A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rules made thereunder. II. Pursuant to an application dated 13.02.2006, AAI issued the first NOC on 26.07.2006 under the then-applicable 1988 Notification, permitting construction of both Tower-I and Tower-II up to a height of 144.53 metres AMSL. That NOC was valid for three years, i.e., until 26.07.2009. The construction of Tower-II was not completed within the validity period, and on 27.08.2010, Shristi Infrastructure sought revalidation of the earlier NOC dated 26.07.2006. III. During the revalidation process, and in view of the then- applicable 2010 Notification (superseding the 1988 framework), AAI informed Shristi Infrastructure on 13.12.2010 that the maximum permissible height for Tower-II was 88.64 metres AMSL, subject to submission of revised plans. After representations were made, AAI issued a second NOC on 13.06.2014 approving Tower-I up to 144.53 metres AMSL5 and Tower-II up to 90.30 metres AMSL, extendable to 105.48 metres AMSL upon commissioning of a proposed Air Surveillance Radar6. IV. On 03.07.2014, AAI issued the final NOC reiterating the prescribed height restrictions, valid for a period of five years. Shristi Infrastructure preferred an appeal before the competent authority; however, the same did not yield any relief. 4 NOC 5 Above Mean Sea Level 6 ASR Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:55:24 LPA 1168/2024 & LPA63/2025 Page 4 of 28 V. Shristi Infrastructure challenged the reduced height in W.P.(C) 7652/2015, assailing the Final NOC dated 03.07.2014, the Appellate Committee order dated 24.06.2015, and AAI’s communication dated 29.07.2015 directing compliance with the revised permissible height. By order dated 25.04.2016, the writ petition was dismissed. Shristi Infrastructure preferred LPA No. 503/2016, challenging the order dated 25.04.2016, which was withdrawn on 24.09.2019 on the ground that subsequent developments necessitated a fresh challenge. While permitting the withdrawal, the Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal or on the pleas raised by Shristi Infrastructure. The Court further observed that, in the event the Shristi Infrastructure pursues fresh legal remedies, all parties would be at liberty to raise all available pleas, both on facts and in law. VI. In the interregnum, on 30.09.2015, the Ministry of Civil Aviation notified the Height Restrictions for Safeguarding Aircraft Operations Rules, 20157, introducing, inter alia, criteria distinguishing “large” and “small” objects based on whether structures, individually or collectively, subtend an azimuth angle of 0.4 degrees or more at the radar antenna. VII. During the pendency of LPA 503/2016, the parties were engaged in constant communications at various levels. Shristi Infrastructure requested reconsideration of its case under the 2015 Notification. AAI agreed to re-examine the matter and, as part of such re-examination, conducted a joint site inspection on 7 2015 notification Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:55:24 LPA 1168/2024 & LPA63/2025 Page 5 of 28

01.11.2018. Coordinates were recorded in the presence of representatives of both sides. AAI thereafter carried out angle and bearing analysis using the No Objection Certificate Application System8 and other Communication, Navigation and Surveillance9 parameters. VIII. On 08.03.2019, AAI issued a communication stating that Tower-II did not qualify for greater height because, along with Tower-I, it constituted a large structure within the meaning of the 2015 Notification. Consequently, Tower-II was restricted to the earlier approved top elevation of 105.48 metres AMSL. IX. Aggrieved thereby, Shristi Infrastructure filed the Writ Petition challenging the communication dated 08.03.2019 and seeking, inter alia, restoration of the higher permissible height and protection from coercive measures regarding the constructed portion of Tower-II. X. AAI justified the impugned communication dated 08.03.2019 by placing reliance on the joint site survey, NOCAS-based computations, and statutory criteria under the 2015 Notification. Shristi Infrastructure, in turn, relied on file notings recording the use of “crude method”, on a private report issued by Sakthi Aviation, and on its contention that Kolkata is a multi-radar airport. XI. By the Impugned Judgment dated 15.10.2024, the learned Single Judge upheld AAI’s technical findings, rejected Shristi Infrastructure’s contentions regarding multi-radar applicability 8 NOCAS 9 CNS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.12.2025 11:55:24 LPA 1168/2024 & LPA63/2025 Page 6 of 28 and the Sakthi Aviation report, but set aside the communication dated 08.03.2019 solely on the ground that it was unreasoned, cryptic, and violative of the principles of Natural Justice. However, liberty was granted to AAI to take fresh action in accordance with the law. XII. Aggrieved by the setting aside of the communication dated

08.03.2019, AAI has preferred LPA 1168/2024 seeking restoration impugned communication. Shristi Infrastructure, being dissatisfied with certain findings in paragraphs 8.2, 9, and 10 of the Impugned Judgment dated

15.10.2024, upholding AAI’s technical conclusions, has preferred LPA 63/2025 challenging those observations, before us. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA’S CONTENTIONS: 7. Learned counsel for the AAI would submit that each height determination was lawfully made under the applicable notifications, namely, S.O. 988 (1988), S.O. 84(E) (2010) and G.S.R. 751(E) (2015), and that the communication dated 08.03.2019 correctly applied the 2015 Notification, which the learned Single Judge failed to recognise. It would further be contended that the finding of a violation of natural justice is untenable, since administrative orders need not contain elaborate reasoning where contemporaneous records reflect due application of mind, reliance being placed on Maharashtra State Board v. K.S. Gandhi10 and M.J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka11.