In a PIL filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge the complete closure of scheduled commercial flight operations at Visakhapatnam Airport w.e.f. 17-08-2026 and transfer of such operations exclusively to the newly built Greenfield Airport at Bhogapuram, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the petition on the ground of forum conveniens.
The petitioner submitted that such closure at the Visakhapatnam Airport was arbitrary and unreasonable as the airport had operated for nearly three decades and was developed through substantial public investment. It was also urged that discontinuing scheduled commercial flights from such an established airport results in underutilisation of valuable public infrastructure.
The petitioner contended that requiring passengers to travel 50 kms from the city to reach Bhogapuram would cause hardship to residents in Vishakhapatnam. It was submitted that a detailed representation dated 14-08-2026 had been submitted seeking policy review for dual-airport co-existence, but since no response was received, the present PIL was preferred. However, the respondents opposed the maintainability of the present PIL, stating that an identical PIL was pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Court opined that even though this Court may have territorial jurisdiction as the respondents were situated within its jurisdiction, the Andhra Pradesh High Court would be the appropriate forum for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. It was stated that the site of the principal grievance was more closely and substantially connected with the State of Andhra Pradesh where the persons stated to be affected were located.
Stating that even if a part of the cause of action may have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Court opined that the doctrine of forum conveniens and the principle of dominant cause of action would warrant that the petitioner approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It was held that merely because the respondents were situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would not justify the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction.
It was also stated that since an identical PIL was pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, entertaining the present PIL would result in multiplicity of proceedings and may also give rise to the possibility of conflicting or inconsistent findings. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner ought to approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court and dismissed the PIL on the ground of forum conveniens.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Mandates Nationwide Biometric Aadhaar Authentication For All GST Registrations
