W.P. NO. 37681/1997


Between :


  1. Arthur J Pereira

S/o late Thomas Pereira

r/o Koramabar

Bajpe Post



  1. Rev. Fr. Ronald D’ Souza

aged 37 years

parish priest   

Adyapady post

via Bajpe



  1. Dalita Sangarsha Samithi

Dakshina Kannada District Unit

Sunder Ullal, kapikad

3rd Floor, Pereira Hotel

Opp. Govt. college


represented by its

District convenor


  1. Manjappa puthran

S/o late angara

Aged 35 years

r/o malavoor padavu

Kenjar village & post

via Bajpe

Mangalore Taluk – 574142


  1. Sadashiva Bhat

s/o Venkatesh Bhat

aged 50 years

Archak, Adyapady

Adinatheshwara Temple

Adyapady Village & Post

Via Bajpe



  1. Yuva Vedike ®

Sadashiva Bhat

Adyapady Adinatheshwara Temple

Via Bajpe


represented by its Secretary.

  1. G.I. Sheikabba

A/o late Abdul Kadar

aged 54 years

President,  school Betterment Committee

Adyapady Hr. Primary School

Via Bajpe



  1. I Sheikabba

s/o late Abdul Kadar

aged 54 years

President, Thakviathul Islam


Gandhi Katte, Adyapady

Via Bajpe

Mangalore-574142                                     Petitioners


         ( By Sri Sanath Kumar  Shetty – Adv. )


And :


  1. Union of Indeia

Ministry of Civil Aviation

R G Bhavan

Safdar Jang Airport

22 Akbasr Road

New Delhi 110001

represented by is

Director General


  1. Chairperson

Airports Authority of India

R G Bhavan

Safdar jang Airport

New Delhi 110003


  1. State of Karnataka

Revenue Department


Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi

Bangalore by its Secretary


  1. Ministry of Environment and

Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan

Cgo  Complex, Lodhi Road

New Delhi 110003

Rep. By the Secretary to the

Govt of India.


  1. Karnataka State Town and

Country planning Board

M.S Building

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi


represented by its Director


  1. Karnataka State Pollution

Control Board

Public Utility Building


Bangalore – 560001

represented by its MemberSecretary


The Deputy Commissioner

Dakshina Kannada District



  1. Central Pollution Control Board

Parivesh Bhavan

East Arjuna Nagar

New Delhi


  1. 9. Dept of Ecology

Environment and Forests

Government of Karnataka



Rep. By the principal Secretary


  1. Zilla Panchayat

Dakshina Kannada District


Rep. By its chief Executive officer


  1. Mangalore Urban Development

Authority, Ballal Bagh


Represented by its Commissioner


  1. Mangalore Mahanagara Palike

Corporation Building

Lal Bagh


Represented by its Commissioner Respondents


( By Sri N Devada -  Addl. CGSC, for R1 & R4

Sri K G Raghavan – Adv for R2

Sri D Nagaraj – Adv for R6

Sri SN Aswa5thanarayana – Govt Adv for R7 & R9

Sri P S Rajagopal – Adv for R8) 


Writ petition is filed under Artices 226 of the constitution praying to direct the respondents not to proceed with the said project except in accordance with law etc..


This writ petition coming on for pronouncement of order today, FAROOQ, J.., made the following:




In this writ petition filed as a public interest litigation, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the Air Port Project in Mangalore except in accordance with law.


  1. Bajpe Air port is situated about 20 Kms from Mangalore city. It is alleged to be a tabletop airport with a runway strip of 1,700 meters approximately. There is a proposal to build another airport stretching east to south west comprising lands of different villages which are situated about 100 meters above sea level According to the petitioners, the location is surrounded by steep hillocks all around except on the north eastern side. Petitioners state that they had filed objection to the Airport Project in view of the dangers involved in selecting the site and according to them the authorities without considering any social, economic and environmental impacts in constructing the airport are proceeding in developing the airport without conforming to the mandatory requirements for the various standards set out for airport construction like the National Building Gate of India as per the Bureau of Indian Standards Act and the International Standards and Recommended Practices for Aerodromes of all the International Civil Aviation Organisation ( AICAO) to which our country is a  contracting party. The petitioners have pointed out many limitations and obstacles and dangers in proceeding with the   project, consideration of various necessary facts contained in various enactments to be gone into before proceeding with the project.


  1. The second respondent in the writ petition is the Airport Authority of India who has filed detailed objection to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners  have no locus standi to file the writ petition and that they are not canvassing any public interest but they are merely busy bodies and meddlesome interlopers who have no interest in the promulgation of the project. That the second respondent has no part to play in the allocation 0f the land  which is done by the Central Government. While denying that the present airport, at Bajpe in Mangalore is a very dangerous airport ,  it is  stated by the second respondent that the airport has been in existence and use for more than four decades and the only incident of an accident which is mentioned by the petitioners in their writ petition was a freak mishap which occurs even in the world’s best airport which is equipped with the most advanced safety systems. It is stated that as on date no land has been transferred to the airport authority and it is only after the land is transferred to it. It can procure clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest and get such other necessary reports from the concerned authorities to proceed with the airport project. It is also stated that the feasibility reports alleged by the petitioners in their writ petition is a preliminary feasibility report and a final feasibility report and  a final feasibility report is to be prepared only after the land is handed over to the second respondent. It is also stated by the second respondent That the  EIA report and other environmental clearances which will be necessary will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment in due course and a Statement is made by the airport Authority the second respondent in this petition, that all social, economic and environmental impacts of the project will definitely be considered as and when the project progresses and that there is no question of any violation of the standards and recommendations of the International civil Aviation Organisation ( ICAO ). It is stated that the fear of the petitioners that the runway is insufficient for any emergency landing of a plane is without any basis since before the project is to proceed, the authorities will be meeting the recommendations of the ICAO. It is also stated that there is no basis for the allegations made by the petitioners to the effect that the various safety measures have not been followed. That on the other hand they will be getting all the relevant materials described by the petitioners which will be followed in letter and spirit without which the airport would not have been conceived in the first place.


  1. Thus it can be seen that the expnsion of Bajpe airport project is at the initial stage and the second respondent has in their objections mentioned above unequivocally stated that all the safety measures etc., stated by the petitioners in their writ petition will be followed during the progress of the project and nothing can be said before the lands are handed over to the second respondent. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the petitioners have rushed to this court before commencement of  the project itself and the writ petition is premature. It  is not therefore, necessary to consider the various grounds taken by the petitioners in the writ petition to allege that the respondents have been proceeding with the project in a casual manner. There is nothing to doubt about the statement made by the second respondent in their objection statement and we are sure that the respondents will be taking all necessary measures under the different enactments etc.., before proceeding with the project in question. The writ petition stands dismissed.