AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Patil
In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security produced at Annexure-P and also the consequential orders dated 08.06.2011 and 07.06.2011 produced at Annexures-Q & R respectively. A direction is also sought against the respondents to consider and allow the application filed by the petitioner for security clearance on 30.07.2010.
Petitioner is a Private Limited Company carrying on the business of offering specialized services in airport visitors'' entry regulation and aircraft ground handling. Petitioner asserts that it is one of the first private operators offering various services at Indian airports on behalf of National Carriers including flight handling services at Amritsar. Ahmedabad, Chennai. Mumbai, Trivandrum. Tricy and Bangalore. According to the petitioner, it has satisfied all the requirements set forth by the 1st respondent for obtaining security clearance approval.
The application filed by the petitioner on 30.07.2010 seeking security clearance has been rejected by order dated 03.06.2011 on the ground that an adverse report against the petitioner and its employees has been received and therefore the application had to be rejected. The impugned order produced at Annexure-P goes on to issue certain instructions to all concerned culling upon them to strictly adhere to the same. The instructions issued which are adverse to the interest of the petitioner read as under:
(i) "No approval of the Security Programme filed by the said Company with RDCOS, BCAS shall be granted. The Security Programme of the said Company if approved by the RDCOS, BCAS snail be cancelled forthwith.
(ii) No aircraft and airport operator shall enter into an agreement with the said Company for ground handling services. Any agreement for ground handling services signed by any aircraft and airport operator operating at the airports in India shall be terminated forthwith.
(iii) No aircraft and airport operator shall be allowed to engage the said Company for ground handling services.
(iv) No Airport Entry Pass shall be issued to the, said Company.
(v) All Airport Entry Passes issued to the employees of the said Company are hereby cancelled with immediate effect.
(vi) In order to prevent access of the said Company''s persons for ground handling serves at the airports in the Country, these directions shall be notified by the concerned CASO, ASG (CISF) for strict compliance by their security personnel at the airports.
Consequent upon the order dated 03.06.2011, the orders at Annexures-Q and R are passed directing withdrawal/cancellation of the security passes issued to the employers of the petitioner-Company.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order Annexure-P is passed without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He points out referring to the documents produced along with the writ petition that the petitioner has been extending such services to the respondents right from 2005 without any complaint''s against them.
Learned counsel representing the respondents invites the attention of the Court to the statement of objections filed and contends that in view of the security reasons, the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity before passing the impugned order. He submits that disclosure of the report which is basically the intelligence report based on which the impugned order is passed affects the security interest of the Country and therefore the respondents have not disclosed those materials to the petitioner.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders and the pleadings, E find that Annexure-P order has serious consequence on the petitioner-Company. By the impugned order, directions are issued stating that the security programme of the petitioner-Company if already approved shall be cancelled forthwith and that no aircraft and airport operator shall enter into any agreement with the said company for ground handling services and if any such agreement is already executed the same shall be terminated. As these directions east stigma on the Company and affect its credibility, in my considered view the respondents could not have passed such an order unilaterally without providing an opportunity of hearing heard to the petitioner. The materials that can be disclosed to the petitioner and those that cannot be disclosed having regard to the security interest of the nation is not the subject matter of this writ petition. It is for the authorities concerned to exercise their discretion in accordance with law to furnish the relevant information to the petitioner. But, the fact remains that without providing any opportunity of being heard, the impugned order is passed which has a serious consequence on the petitioner. Such an order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the respondents have to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order Annexure-P and the consequential orders at Annexure-Q and R are set aside. The respondents shall pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a peried of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until then, the services that are being rendered by the petitioner shall stand suspended. All contentions are kept open.