MOHAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting-aside the order dtd. 31/10/2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi which has been communicated to the petitioner vide e-mail dtd. 3/12/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 4 of the Aircraft Security Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2011") has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting-aside the letter dtd. 23/7/2019 communicated to the petitioner's firm, whereby the application filed by the petitioner regarding security clearance has been rejected.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of providing auxiliary services comprising of house-keeping and allied services. The Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi invited applications on an online portal namely, "e-Sahaj" for obtaining one-time No Objection Certificate or security clearance which is granted by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and its attached offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs etc. to facilitate the contractors working at various airports in the country. The Ministry of Civil Aviation issued a general notice dtd. 24/11/2017 prescribing the category of works for which one-time security clearance could be obtained from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner applied online on e-Sahaj Portal vide its application dtd. 24/7/2018 for grant of one-time security clearance. However, the petitioner received letter dtd. 23/7/2019 issued by the respondent no. 4 - Assistant Director (Policy), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Government of India, New Delhi informing that its application regarding security clearance has been regretted by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, also stating that the said order has been issued with the approval of the Director General, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2011. The petitioner also preferred a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 3681 of 2019 before this Court, which was disposed vide order dtd. 23/9/2019 directing the respondent no. 2 to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 2 to dispose of the said pending appeal. The respondent no. 2 thereafter heard the petitioner and subsequently communicated to it about the impugned order dtd. 31/10/2019 vide e-mail dtd. 3/12/2019 rejecting the said appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on bare perusal of the order dtd. 31/10/2019, it would appear that the respondent no. 2 passed the said order rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground that pursuant to its application filed through online e-Sahaj portal for grant of security clearance, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has got the matter enquired by the Central Security Agency which has submitted an adverse report against the petitioner. It is further submitted that neither during the course of hearing before the respondent no. 2 nor at any other point of time, the copy of the said adverse report of the Central Security Agency has been furnished to the petitioner. In fact, the impugned order itself mentions that the said adverse report submitted by the Central Security Agency cannot be shared with the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order dtd. 31/10/2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 is an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is a cardinal principle of law that a document sought to be relied upon against any person/entity which would result in adverse civil consequences is required to be furnished to the said person/entity in order to give an opportunity to the said person/entity to revert the same. Despite the said settled proposition of law, the so-called adverse report of the Central Security Agency has not been furnished to the petitioner. The denial of security clearance to the petitioner and rejection of its appeal amounts to blacklisting it in perpetuity and the petitioner would not be able to render any service with the respondent authorities for all times to come. The effect of the order of denial of security clearance to the petitioner and the consequential rejection of its appeal has caused serious adverse civil consequences inasmuch as all its existing five contracts with various airports have been cancelled. The petitioner-firm has been carrying on various works on behalf of the respondent authorities for last 14 years and till today, no notice/any adverse order has been passed against it. There is no criminal case pending against the petitioner-firm and after examining the periodical character verification, security clearance was granted to the petitioner by the Airport Authority of India.