DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.versusINTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPN. & OTHERS

                        [2015] 2 S.C.R. 1040


A            DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.

                                  v.
    INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPN. & OTHERS
B                 (Civil Appeal No. 2932 of 2015)

                         MARCH 17, 2015

        [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
c        Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules,
    1961-n: 3, 4, 4(2)- Minutes of the meeting, if can ovenide
    statutory regulations - In exercise of power u!Reg 10,
    appellant detained aircraft belonging to respondent no. 1
D   airlines at Delhi and Mumbai airports for defaulting in
    payment of dues to the tune of Rs. 10 crore - Challenge
    to, by owners of Aircraft - During the pendency of writ
    petition meeting held regarding release of aircraft by airport
    operators - High Court ordered release of aircraft in tenns
E   of the decision in the meeting, on payment of parking
    charges - On appeal held: In order to hold the minutes of
    the meeting as "a general or special order in writing by the
    Central Governmenr involving the abandonment of revenue
    or which has a financial implication on the Airports Authority
F   of India under the control of Civil Aviation Ministry,
    sanctification by the concerned ministry and the
    concurrence of Finance Department was a mandatory
    condition - It cannot be finalized merely at the level of
    officers/representatives of Civil Aviation, Central Board of
G   Excise and Customs etc. - On facts, minutes of the meeting
    did not have the concurrence of the Finance Department
    and nor was confirmed or approved by the concerned


                                1040
H
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1041
                    CORPN.'

minister - Such directions were not issued pursuant to any A
decision taken by a competent authority in terms of Rules
of Business framed u/Art 77 - Unless the minutes of
meeting resulted in a final decision taken by the competent
authority in terms of Art. 77(3) and the decision so taken is
communicated to the concerned person, the same was not B
capable of being enforced by issuing a direction in a .writ
petition - Thus, the o "rder passed by the High Court set
aside - Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 - s. 22(i)(a) -
Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports)
Regulations, 2003 - Reg 10 - Constitution of India, 1950 C
-Arts 77.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 From a combined reading of Rules 3, 4,         D
  4(2) of the Government of India (Allocation of Business)
  Rules, 1961 the minutes of meeting which is to be
  converted as a general or special order in writing by
  the Central Government involving the abandonment of
  revenue or which has a financial implication on the           E
  Airports Authority of India which is under the control
  of Civil Aviation Ministry, it was required to proceed only
  after the concurrence of Finance Department. It cannot
  be finalized merely at the level of officers/
. representatives of Civil Aviation, Central Board of           F
· Excise and Customs etc. After concurrence of the
  Finance Ministry, the minutes of the meeting ought to
  have been placed before the concerned minister as per
  the Rules of Business. Sanctification by the concerned
  ministry and the concurrence of Finance Department            G
  was a mandatory condition in order to hold the minutes
  of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 as "a general or special
  order in writing by the Central Government". In the
  absence. of any such sanctification by the competent          H
1042      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A authority, mere minutes of the meeting would not give
   any indefeasible right to the appellant [Para 24] [1057-
   C-G]

        1.2 There is nothing on record to show that the
 B minutes of the meeting had the concurrence of the
   Finance Department and was either confirmed or
   approved by the concerned minister and such
   directions were not shown to have been issued
   pursuant to any decision taken by a competent
 C authority in terms of Rules of Business framed under
   Article 77 of the Constitution of India. The minutes of
   the meeting do not become a general or special order
   in writing by the Central Government unless the same
   was sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in
 D the name of the President in the manner provided under
   Article 77 (2) of the Constitution. [Para 25] [1058-D-F]

        1.3 Unless the minutes of meeting resulted in a final
   decision taken by the competent authority in terms of
 E 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
 F the matter in terms of the minutes of the meeting and
   the impugned order is set aside. [Paras 28] [1060-C-D]

      Shanti Sports Club & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
  2009 (13) SCR 710: (2009) 15 SCC 705; Sant Ram
G Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1968) 1 SCR 111;
  State of Sikkim vs. Doljee Tshering Bhutia & Ors. 1991 (3)
  SCR 633: (1991) 4 SCC 243; Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil &
  Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 97:
  (1996) 2 SCC 26; MRF Limited vs. Manohar Palrikar & Ors.
H 2010 (5) SCR 1081: 2010 (11) SCC 374; Haridwar Singh
    '
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1043
                    CORPN.

vs. Bagun Sumbrui & Ors. (1973) 3 SCC 889 - referred       A
to.

                 Case Law Reference

    2009 (13) SCR 710        Referred to.     Para 8
                                                           B
    (1968) 1 SCR 111         Referred to.     Para 8

    1991 (3) SCR 633         Referred to.    Para 20

    1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 97 Referred to.      Para 21
                                                           c
    2010 (5) SCR 1081        Referred to.    Para 23

    (1973) 3 sec 889         Referred to.    Para 27

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civ.il Appeal No.         D
2932 of 2015

    From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2013 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 7767 of
2012.
                                                           E
    Gopal Jain, Chinmayee Chandra, Vaibhav Choudhary,
C. D. Singh for the Appellant.

    Atul Nanda, K. Radhakrishnan, Neeraj Sharma, Alok
Tiwari (For Dua Associates), Rameeza Hakeem, P. Goyal      F
(For Law Associates), Sunita Rani Singh, R. K. Verma, 8.
Krishna Prasad for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                           G
    R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.7767/2012, wherein the Division . H
1044      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by
   the respondent No.1. The issue falling for consideration is
   whether minutes of meeting can override statutory
   regulations.

 8       3. The appellant is Delhi International Airport Limited,
   a joint venture and public partnership between GMR
   companies, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Fraport Germany and
   Eraman Malaysia. Appellant has been granted aerodrome
   licence by Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) on
 C 1.5.2008 and is a competent authority with respect to Delhi
   Airport responsible for upgradation, maintenance and
   operation of Delhi Airport. Appellant has been conferred
   power under Section 22(i)(a) of the Airport Authority of India
   Act, 1994 (short for 'AAI Act') to charge fees, rent etc. for
 D the landing, housing or parking of aircraft. Respondent No.1
   is a leasing company incorporated under laws of California,
   U.S.A, engaged in the business of leasing of aircrafts
   engines and related equipment.

 E      4. Kingfisher Airlines (KAL) had been operating
   commercial airlines and unable to pay dues of various
   authorities. The scheduled airline licence of the 81h
   respondent-Kingfisher Airlines (KAL) was suspended due
   to non-payment of the parking, landing and housing charges
 F in respect of the aircraft bearing registration No.VT-KFT
   which was previously registered to Kingfisher Airlines
   Limited (KAL) and leased to KAL by respondent No.1 were
   detained at Delhi Airport and subsequently got de-registered
   on 27.12.2012. Section 22 of the AAI Act provides for levy
 G of landing, housing and parking charges at the Airport.
   These charges (amounting to a total of Rs.10,50,51,052.77
   for all eight detained aircraft) and other statutory charges
   and dues (amounting to Rs.12,64,08,706.57 for all eight
 H detained aircraft) attach to the aircraft and have to be
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1045
             CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

discharged by the person in control of the aircraft is under A
Regulation 10. Other aircrafts of KAL lying at various airports
also got detained at different airports due to non-payment
of charges and subsequently deregistered.

    5. Assailing the order of detention. of the aircrafts B
belonging to respondent No.1 by Delhi International Airport
Limited (short for 'DIAL'), Airport Authority of India (short for
'AAI') and Mumbai International Airport Limited (short for
'MIAL') and challenging vires Regulation 10 of the Airport
Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, C
2003, respondent No.1 filed writ petition before the Delhi
High Court.

      6. During pendency of the writ petition, on 26.3.2013 a
meeting was held regarding release of the aircrafts of D
respondent No.8 by the airport operators. The participants
in the meeting included representatives of (a) Ministry of
Civil Aviation (MCA), (b) Central Board of Excise & Customs
(CBEC), (c) Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), (d)
Airports Authority of India (AAI), (e) Delhi International E
Airport Pvt. Ltd. (DIAL), (f) Mumbai International Airport Pvt.
Ltd. (MIAL). After detailed discussions various decisions
were made. It was inter- alia decided that:-

  "(i) DGCA shall, henceforth, seek views of concerned          F
       airport operators prior to deregistration of remaining
       KFA aircraft;

  (ii)   CBEC and DGCA shall reconcile list of remaining
         KFA aircraft registered with DGCA so as to confirm G
         whether these aircrafts are purely under financial/
         operatirig lease or some of them are jointly owned
         by Lessor and KFA;

  (iii) The concerned airport operators shall release all the H
1046         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A            de-registered aircraft to the respective owners/lessors
              immediately so that these aircrafts can fly out of the
              country. They are at liberty to collect parking charges
              from the owners/lessors from the date of de-
              registration. In case any of these deregistered
 B            aircrafts are subject matter of any court case between
              the owners/lessors and the airport operator, then the
              airport would take action as per the decision of the
              Court."

 C     7. High Court of Delhi vide impugned order dated
   8.5.2013 directed all the airports to release the aircrafts in
   terms of the above decision taken in the meeting held on
   26.3.2013 on payment of parking charges up to 13.5.2013.
   Being aggrieved, the appellant-DIAL has preferred this
 D appeal by way of special leave.

            8. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing
   for the appellant submitted that the minutes of the meeting
   is in the nature of an executive decision and it curtails their
 E statutory power to detain the aircrafts for non-payment of
   fees and said minutes of meeting cannot override
   Regulation 10 and other statutory regulations. It was
   submitted that the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013
   is not a general or a special order passed by the Central
 F Government and does not have statutory force. Placing
   reliance upon Shanti Sports Club & Anr. vs. Union of India
   & Ors. 1 and Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan &
   Ors. 2, it was submitted that the government cannot amend
   or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions
 G and the High Court erred in directing release of the aircrafts
   in terms of the decision taken in the meeting held on

       1 (2009) 15 sec 705

 H     2 (1968) 1 SCR 111
DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1047
            CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.)

26.3.2013.                                                   A
    9. We have heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for Union of India and Mr. Neeraj
Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and       B
perused the impugned order and material on record.

     10. Section 22 (i)(a) of the AAI Act confers powers to
charge fees, rent etc. for the landing, housing or parking of
aircrafts. These charges for landing, housing and parking C
are fixed by Airport Economic Regulatory Authority (short
for 'AERA') during the tariff determination procedure
undertaken after extensive consultation with_ the stake
holders. Section 42(2)(0) of the AAI Act empowers the
authority to make regulations not inconsistent with the AAI D
Act and the Rules made thereunder generally for the
efficient and proper management of the airport or civil
enclave. It is relevant to refer to Regulation 42 which reads
as under:-
                                                             E
    "42.(1) The authority may make Regulations not
    inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder
    to provide for all matters for which provision is
    necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect
    to the provisions of this Act.                           F

    (2)      Without prejudice to the generality of the
    foregoing power, such Regulations may provide for -


       (o) generally for the efficient and proper G
       management of the airport or civil enclave."

    11. In exercise of the powers under Regulation 42
(2)(o), AAI notified the Airport Authority of India
                                                             H
1048         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A     (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003 (short for 'AAI
       Regulations'). In this appeal, we are concerned with
       Regulation 10 which reads as under:-

           "10. Unless otherwise provided under the Act or by a
 B         general or special order in writing by the Central
           Government, the use of the movement area of Airport,
           by an aircraft shall be subject to payment of such
           landing, parking or housing fees or charges as are
           levied by the Authority from time to time. In the event
 C         of non-payment of the requisite fee or charges, the
           Competent Authority shall have a right to detain or stop
           departure of the aircraft till the fees or charges are paid
           to Authority, which may include the current and
           accumulated dues."
 D
           12. 'Competent Authority' is defined in Regulation 3(8)
       which reads as under:-

        "8. 'Competent Authority' means in relation to exercise
 E of any power of the Authority, the Chairperson, and any
   member authorized by the Chairperson, Airport Director or
   Controller of Aerodrome or lncharge of any Airport or civil
   enclave or any other officer specified by the Chairperson
   in that behalf."
 F
        The appellant is the competent authority with respect
   to the Delhi Airport having been granted aerodrome licence
   from DGCAon 1.5,2008. Section 42 (2)(o} read with Section
   22 of the AAI Act and Regulation 10 is a complete code
 G with regard to the right of the airport operator to levy and
   ensure collection of dues including the right to detain or stop
   departure of the aircraft till the fees or charges are paid
   irrespective of the ownership of the aircraft. The charges
   and dues are attached to the aircraft. According to the
 H appellant-DIAL, it has the right to detain or stop departure
  DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1049
              CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

 of aircrafts till the fees or charges in this case the landing, A
 housing and parking charges are determined by AERA are
 paid and minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 cannot
 override regulations.

       13. Under Regulation 10, competent authority has the B
  authority to detain the aircraft or stop departure of the
  aircraft "unless otherwise provided by the Act or by general
  or special order in writing by the Central Governmenf'.
  According to the appellant, under the Regulation, the
  appellant has the right to detain or stop an aircraft and C
  minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013 is not a general
· or special order passed by the Central Government and it
  cannot override the powers of the Airport Authority of India
  under Regulation 10.
                                                               D
       14. According to Union of India, Government has the
  sole prerogative to take a decision by virtue of Section 40
  of the AAI Act and in the present case minutes of the
  meeting dated 26.03.2013 is the decision of the Central
  Government which is in accordance with law.                  E

      15. The High Court has mainly relied upon minutes of
 the meeting dated 26.3.2013. It has neither gone into the
 question whether the minutes of the meeting, where
 decision was taken by the Central Government in F
 accordance with the provision of Section 40 of the AAI Act
 nor it had examined the vires of Regulation 10. The High
 Court had only referred to the minutes of the meeting and
 disposed of the writ petition, recording the statement of the
 learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions as per. G
 the minutes of the meeting are complied with. It has to be
 seen whether the minutes of the meeting dated 26.3.2013
 would amount to a general order or special order passed
 by the Central Government and whether it would override
 the powers of the Airport Authority of India under Regulation H
1050       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A 10.
        16. Article 77 of the Constitution of India deals with the
   conduct of business of Government of India while Article
   166 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of
 B business of the Government of the State. All executive
   actions of the Government of India and the Government of
   a State are required to be taken in the name of the
   President or the Governor of the concerned State as the
   case may be.
 c
        17. Clause (1) of Article 77 of the Consti!ution of India
   provides that whenever executive action is to be taken by
   way of an order or instrument, it shall be expressed to be
   taken in the name of the President in whom the executive
 o power of the Union is vested. Clause (2) of Article 77 of
   the Constitution of India provides that the validity of an order
   or instrument made or executed in the name of the
   President, and authenticated in the manner specified in the
   rules made by the President, shall not be called in question
 E on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or
   executed by the President.

        18. Under clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution
   of India, the President is to make rules for the more
 F convenient transaction of government business and for the
   allocation of the same amongst ministers. A similar provision
   occurs in Article 166(3) empowering the Governors to make
   rules for the conduct of government business in the States.
   In all cases in which the President or the Governor
 G exercises his functions conferred on him by or under this
   Constitution with the aid and advice of his Council of
   Ministers, he does so by making rules for more convenient
   transaction of business and for allocation among ministers
   of the said business in accordance with Articles 77(3) and
 H 166(3) respectively. Further, the rules of business and
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1051
             CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

allocation among ministers is relatable to Articles 53(1) and A
154(1) that the executive power shall be exercised by the
President or the Governor directly or through the
subordinate officers. The President or the Governor means
the President or the Governor aided and advised by the
Council of Ministers. Neither Article 77(3) nor Article 166(3) B
provides for any delegation of power.

     19. Under the Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961, the government business is divided
amongst the ministers and specific functions are reallocated     C
to different ministries. Each ministry can therefore issue
orders or notifications in respect of the functions which have
been allocated to it under the Rules of Business. We may
usefully refer to Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961, as lastly amended by amendment            D
dated 1.12.2014 made by the President in exercise of the
provisions of sub-clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution
of India for more convenient transaction of the business of
the Government of India. Rule 3 provides that subject to
certain exceptions made thereunder, all business allotted        E
to a department under the Government of India (Allocation
of Business) Rules, 1961 shall be disposed of by or under
the general or special directions of the Minister in Charge.
Further Rule 4 provides for Inter-Departmental                   F
Consultations. Rule 4(1) reads as under:-

    "4 Inter-Departmental Consultations.-(1) When the
    subject of a case concerns more than one department,
    no decision be taken or order issued until all such
    departments have concurred, or, failing such G
    concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or
    under the authority of the Cabinet."

     Sub-clause (2) of Rule 4 which is very much relevant
in instant case can be reproduced here for convenience:   H
1052          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 2 S.C.R.


 A          "Unless the case is fully covered by powered to
            sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate
            funds, conferred by any general or special orders made
            by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without
            the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance,
 B          issue any orders which may-

               (a)    involve any abandonment of revenue or
               involve any expenditure for which no provision has
               been made in the appropriation act;
 c
               (b)

               (c)

               (d)     Otherwise have a financial bearing whether
 D             involving expenditure or not;"

            20. In State of Sikkim vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia &
       Ors. 3 , it is observed as under:-

 E          "14 .... The government business is conducted under
            Article 166(3) of the Constitution in accordance with the
            Rules of Business made by the Governor. Under the
            said Rules the government business is divided amongst
            the ministers and specific functions are allocated to
 F          different ministries. Each ministry can, therefore, issue
            orders or notifications in respect of the functions which
            have been allocated to it under the Rules of Business."

           21. In Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil & Ors. vs. State of
 G     Gujarat & Ors. 4 , it is held as under:-

            "14 ... lt would, therefore, be clear that the decision of

              sec 243
       3 (1991) 4               ,

 H 4 (1996) 2 sec 26
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE1053
             CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

    a Minister under the Business Rules is not final or          A
    conclusive until the requirements in terms of clauses
    (1) and (2) of Article 166 are complied with. Before the
    action or the decision is expressed in the name of the
    Governor in the manner prescribed under the Business
    Rules and communicated to the party concerned it             B
    would always be .open by necessary implication, to the
    Chief Minister to send for the file and have it examined
    by himself and to take a decision, though the subject
    was allotted to a particular Minister for convenient
    transaction of the business of the Government. The           C
    subject, though exclusively allotted to the Minister, by
    reason of the responsibility of the Chief Minister to the
    Governor and accountability to the people, has implied
    power to call for the file relating to a decision taken by   D
    a Minister. The object of allotment of the subject to a
    Minister is for the convenient transaction of the
    business at various levels through designated
    officers .... "

    22. In terms of Rule 3 the alleged decision taken            E
pursuant to meeting dated 26.3.2013 should have been
sanctioned by under the general or special directions of the
Minister in Charge. Since in this case, stakes of different
departments headed by different ministries are concerned,        F
the provision of Rule 4 would apply i.e. alleged decision
should have been taken by the concerned committee of the
Cabinet. Since, the alleged decision involves the financial
bearing also, it should have all concurrence of Finance
Department also. Apparently alleged minutes of the meeting       G
purportedly stated to be an order in writing by Central
Government and later communicated to all concerned, are
not disposed of in pursuance of Rule 4 i.e. neither the
decision was sanctified by Cabinet nor the concurrence of
         .
Finance Department was taken.                                    H
1054          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 2 S.C.R.


 A     23. At this stage, it is apposite to consider the ratio laid
   down in MRF Limited vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors. 5 , wherein
   scope of Article 166 (3) was under consideration and
   observing that Rules of Business framed under Articles
   166(3) and 77(3) are mandatory, this Court has held as
 B under:-

            "67 ..... ln the case on hand, we are required to examine
            the contentions of the appellants on this issue with
            reference to the Business Rules framed by Governor
 C          of Goa under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India.

            68. Rule 7(2) of the Business Rules of the Government
            of Goa states, that, a proposal which requires previous
            concurrence of the Finance Department under the said
 D          Rule, but in which the Finance Department has not
            concurred, may not be proceeded with, unless the
            Council of Ministers has taken a decision to that effect.
            The wordings of this Rule are different from the
            provisions of Rule 9 of the Business Rules of
 E          Maharashtra and have to be read in context with the
            provisions of Rule 3 of the Business Rules of the
            Government of Goa which states that the business of
            the Government shall be transacted in accordance with
            the Business Rules. Under Rule 7(2) thereof, the
 F          concurrence of the Finance Department is a condition
            precedent.
            69. Likewise, Rule 6 of the Business Rules states, that,
            the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible
 G          for all executive orders passed by any Department in
            the name of the Governor or contract made in exercise
            of the power conferred on the Governor or any other
            officer subordinate to him in accordance with the Rules,

 H     5 2010 (11)   sec 374
DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v, INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1055
            CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.)

  whether such orders or contracts are authorised by an A
  individual Minister on a matter pertaining to the
  Department under his charge or as the result of
  discussion at a meeting of the Council of Ministers or
  otherwise. This Rule requires that an executive order
  issued from any Department in the name of the B
  Governor of the State should be known to the Council
  of Ministers so as to fulfil the collective responsibility
  of the Council of Ministers.

  70. Further, Rule 7 of the Business Rules requires that C
  no Department shall without the concurrence of the
  Finance Department issue any order which may involve
  any abandonment of revenue or involve expenditure for
  which no provisions have been made in the
  Appropriation Act or involve any grant of land or D
  assignment of revenue or concession, grant, lease or
  licence in respect of minerals or forest rights or rights
  to water, power or any easement or privilege or
  otherwise have financial implications whether involving
  expenditure or not.                                       E

  71. From a combined reading of the provisions of Rules
  7, 3 and 6 of the Business Rules of the Government
  of Goa the conclusion would be irresistible that any
  proposal which is likely to be converted into a decision F
  of the State Government involving expenditure or
  abandonment of revenue for which there is no provision
  made in the Appropriation Act or an issue which
  involves concession or otherwise has a financial
  implication on the State is required to be processed only G
  after the concurrence of the Finance Department and
  cannot be finalised merely at the level of the Minister-
  in-charge. The procedure or process does not stop at
  this. After the concurrence of the Finance Department H
1056     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 2 S.C.R.


 A     the proposal has to be placed before the Council of
       Ministers and/or the Chief Minister and only after a
       decision is taken in this regard that it will result in the
       decision of the State Government. Therefore, the High
       Court has rightly rejected the arguments of the
 B     appellants herein based on the judgment of the Full
       Bench of the High Court.

       72. The High Court has observed, that the Rules of
       Business are framed in such a manner that the
 c     mandate of the provisions of Articles 154, 163 and 166
       of the Constitution are fulfilled. Therefore. if it is held
       that the non-compliance with these Rules does not
       vitiate the decisions taken by an individual Minister
       concerned alone. the result would be disastrous. In a
 D     democratic set-yp the decision of the State Government
       must reflect the collective wisdom of the Council of
       Ministers or at least that of the Chief Minister who
       heads the Council. The fact that the decisions taken
       by the Minister alone were acted upon by issuance of
 E     notification will not render them decisions of the State
       Government even if the State Government chose to
       remain silent for a sufficient period of time or the
       Secretarv concerned to the State Government did not
       take any action under Rule 46 of the Business Rules.
 F
       If every decision of an individual Minister taken in
       breach of the Rules are treated to be those of the State
       Government within the meaning of Article 154 of the
       Constitution. the result would be chaotic. The Chief
G      Minister would remain a mere figure head and everv
       Minister will be free to act on his own by keeping the
       Business Rules at bay. Further. it would make it
       impossible to discharge the constitutional responsibility
       of the Chief Minister of advising the Governor under
 H     Article 163. Therefore. it is difficult to accept the
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1057
             CORPN. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

    contentions of the appellants that the Business Rules A
    are directory.

    73. We also subscribe to and uphold the view of the
    High Court that Business Rules 3, 6, 7 and 9 are
    mandatory and not directory and any decision taken by B
    any individual Minister in violation of them cannot be
    termed as the decision of the State Government. We
    are fortified in our view by several decisions of this
    Court". (emphasis added)
                                                                c
     24. From a combined reading of Rules 3, 4, 4(2) and
in the light of the above decisions, the minutes of meeting
which is to be converted as a general or special order in
writing by the Central Government involving the
abandonment of revenue or which has a financial                 D
implication on the Airports Authority of India which is under
the control of Civil Aviation Ministry, it was required to
proceed only after the concurrence of Finance Department.
It cannot be finalized merely at the level of officers/
representatives of Civil Aviation, Central Board of Excise      E
and Customs etc. After concurrence of the Finance Ministry,
the minutes of the meeting ought to have been placed
before the concerned minister as per the Rules of Business.
Sanctification by the concerned ministry and the
concurrence of Finance Department was a mandatory               F
condition in order to hold the minutes of the meeting dated
26.3.2013 as "a general or special order in writing by the
Central Government". In the absence of any such
sanctification by the competent authority, in our view, mere
minutes of the meeting would not give any indefeasible right    G
to the appellant.

    25. According to the second respondent (Union of
India), the meeting had been convened in the backdrop of
                                                                H
1058         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A      Cape Town Convention and Protocol i.e. the Convention on
        International Interests in Mobile Equipment which provides
       for the protection of the international interests in the aircrafts
       as well and India became signatory to this Convention on
       31.3.2008. Union of India contends that in the meeting
 B     convened on 26.3.2013, it was decided that in order to
       honour the international obligations of India and to-restore
       faith of international business community and investors, it
       was necessary to allow the aircrafts to be returned to the
       owners-lessors. Stand of UOI is that minutes of the meeting
 C     is the decision of the Central Government is in accordance
       with law and has the force of law. Such a decision involving
       financial implications must have been taken in terms of the
       constitutional scheme i.e. upon compliance of requirement
 D     of Article 77 of the Constitution. There is nothing on record
       to show that the minutes of the meeting had the
       concurrence of the Finance Department and was either
       confirmed or approved by the concerned minister and such
       directions were not shown to have been issued pursuant
 E     to any decision taken by a competent authority in terms of
       Rules of Business framed under Article 77 of the
       Constitution of India. The minutes of the meeting do not
       become a general or special order in writing by the Central
       Government unless the same was sanctified and acted
 F     upon by issuing an order in the name of the President in
       the manner provided under Article 77 (2) of the Constitution.

       26. It is the further contention that the Central
   Government has the sole prerogative to take a decision to
 G waive the right to detain the aircraft and in the present case,
   DIAL has waived its right by participating in the meeting
   and accepting the decision taken in the meeimg. It was also
   submitted that the Central Government is empowered to
   take a unilateral decision in this regard and the appellant
 H had not objected to the decision being made and thus
 DELHI INTL. AIRPORT LTD. v. INTL. LEASE FINANCE 1059
             CORPN. (R. BANUMATHI, J.]

precluded from raising any objections regarding the same. A
When the minutes of meeting were not sanctioned by the
competent authority and in accordance with the mandatory
requirement of Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, the
same cannot be put against the appellant.
                                                               B
     27. In Haridwar Singh vs. Bagun Sumbrui and Ors. 6,
this Court was dealing with the Business of Rules of the
State of Bihar framed under Article 166 (3) of the
Constitution of India wherein this Court held (pp.895-896
paras 14-16) as under:-                                        C

    "14. Where a prescription relates to performance of a
    public duty and to invalidate acts done in neglect of
    them would work serious general inconvenience or
    injustice to persons who have no con.trol over those D
    entrusted with the duty, such prescription is generally
    understood as mere instruction for the guidance of
    those upon whom the duty is imposed (See Dattatreya
    Moreshwer Pangarkar vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1952
    SC 181).                                                E

    15. Where however, a power or authority is conferred
    with a direction that certain regulation or formality shall
    be complied with, it seems neither unjust nor incorrect
    to exact a rigorous observance of it as essential to the F
    acquisition of the right or authority (see Maxwell,
    Interpretation of Statutes, 61h Edn., pp.649-650).

    16. ..... Further, Rule 10(2) makes it clear that where
    prior consultation with the Finance Department is G
    required for a proposal, and the Department on
    consultation, does not agree to the proposal, the
    Department originating the proposal can take no further

a (1973) 3 sec 889                                            H




                                                              "    • r
1060         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A          action on the proposal. The Cabinet alone would be
            competent to take a decision. When we see that the
            disagreement of the Finance Department with a
            proposal on consultation, deprives the Department
            originating the proposal of the power to take further
 B          action on it, the only conclusion possible is that prior
            consultation is an essential prerequisite to the exercise
            of the power .... "

        28. Unless the minutes of meeting resulted in a final
 C 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
 D 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.

       29. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and
 E 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. No order' as to costs.
 F     Nidhi Jain                                    Appeal allowed.