Bangalore Support Group: 153, 5th Main, 4th Block, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 2nd Phase,

Bangalore 560 085. INDIA

Telefax: 91-80-6614855  Email:




The Secretary General

International Civil Aviation Organisation

1000, Sherbrooke Street West

Suite 400



Canada H3A 2R2



                                                                                                            06 November 1998



Reg.:  Clarification sought with regard to compliance of ICAO Airport Design Standards by the Airports Authority of India in the construction of Second Runway and terminal tower at the Bajpe Airport, Mangalore.



Dear Sir or Madam,


The undersigned is the Secretary of the Vimana Nildhana Vistharana Virodhi Samithi, which translates from the original Kannada language to “Airport Expansion Opposition Committee”.  This committee has for the past decade been resisting the expansion of the Bajpe Airport in the coastal city of Mangalore of Karnataka State, India for a combination of reasons including lapses with regard to considerations relating to the planning, technical compliane, environmental and social impacts of the project.


The undersigned has also initiated a Public Interest Litigation against the said project before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 37681/1997.  The judgement with regard to the same is presently reserved.


In the response filed by the Airports Authority of India with regard to the aforementioned petition, it has been submitted to the Honourable Court that:


“It is completely false to suggest that the respondents have violated the standards and recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to which India is a signatory, is totally false and unfounded.  It is submitted that as regards the minimum width of the runway is concerned, the respondents have already filed their differences with the ICAO to the effect that if the existing airport is to be upgraded, then the existing runway strip’s width will continue if the additional land is not available.  Presently the same is under the consideration of the ICAO.”


The above response was filed in reaction to our contention that the said airport was being developed without ensuring the minimum prescribed width of 300 metres for an instrument runway, as prescribed by the ICAO standards and Indian Law in this regard. Evidence has been provided to the Court to demonstrate that throughout the extent of the runway the minimum width of 300 metres is not available and also that the entire location is surrounded by a drop of 100 metres.


With regard to the above, I would appreciate if your office could clarify with regard to the following:


1.      Whether India has made a notification under Article 38 of the ICAO?

2.      Whether the Airports Authority of India has notified the “differences” with regard to the width of the runway for the proposed 2nd runway and terminal of the Mangalore airport.


As we are requesting this information in the public interest, we deeply appreciate your earliest response in this regard.  Should you need any assistance from us, or any clarifications on the matter, please contact us at the aforementioned addresses. 


Further, we will be obliged to send a copy of our petition if needed.  The same may also be downloaded from the website: (The item is listed as Bajpe airport petition)


Thank you for your cooperation and support.


With best wishes,


Yours truly,






Arthur Pereira


Vimana Nildhana Vistharana Virodhi Samithi