Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1599
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI
Global Vectra Helicorp
Versus
Directorate General Of Civil Aviation & Another
W.P.(C) 2775 & 3197 OF 2012
Decided on : 11-06-2012
For the Appellants:Neeraj Kishan Kaul Sr. Adv. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rameeza Hakeem & Sandeep Bajaj, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Akshay Chandra Advocates. For the Respondents:A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, with Ms. Anjana Gosain & Ritesh Singh, Advocates.
Headnote:
The Court held that the DGCA was justified in suspending the petitioner's NSOP under Rule 134A(6) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, as there was material available with the respondents to justify the withdrawal of the security clearance by the MHA granted earlier to ByCell. The inputs so gathered were on the basis of the information provided by the Petitioner in response to the detailed questionnaire. The Court also held that the assessment of the inputs received from the intelligence and security agencies by the Respondent FIPB is a matter of subjective satisfaction over which this Court cannot sit in appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bycell Communications India Private Limited, was engaged in the business of providing GSM cellular phone services all over India. The petitioner's security clearance was revoked by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) revoked its approval granted to the petitioner to undertake activities of GSM cellular phone services all over India. The petitioner challenged the revocation of its security clearance and the approval granted by the FIPB, arguing that the principles of natural justice were violated and that there was no material to justify the withdrawal of the security clearance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain its position before the FIPB and the MHA. The Court also held that there was material available with the respondents to justify the withdrawal of the security clearance, and that the assessment of the inputs received from the intelligence and security agencies by the Respondent FIPB is a matter of subjective satisfaction over which this Court cannot sit in appeal.
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the revocation of the petitioner's security clearance and the approval granted by the FIPB.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain its position before the FIPB and the MHA. The Court also held that there was material available with the respondents to justify the withdrawal of the security clearance, and that the assessment of the inputs received from the intelligence and security agencies by the Respondent FIPB is a matter of subjective satisfaction over which this Court cannot sit in appeal.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
C.M. Nos. 5957/2012 & 6842/2012 W.P.(C.) Nos. 2775/2012 & 3197/2012 Page 2 of
1. The petitioners have preferred the aforesaid writ petitions to seek a writ of mandamus quashing and setting aside the order No. AV.1404/48/97-80.I dated 07.05.2012 issued by respondent No. 1, i.e. the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), whereby the DGCA has suspended, with immediate effect, the Non-Scheduled Operator’s Permit (NSOP) No. 08/1998 issued to the petitioner, by invoking sub-Rule (6) of Rule 134A of the Aircrafts Rules, 1937 (the Rules). The impugned order is premised upon the withdrawal of security clearance of the petitioner company Global Vectra and it’s Director–Sh. Ravi Rishi, by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India. The petitioner also assails the action of respondent No. 2, i.e. the MHA in withdrawing the security clearance of the petitioner company.
2. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No. 2775/2012 is that petitioner No. 1 Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. (herein referred to as Global Vectra) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a Citizen of India and working as the Senior Vice-President of Global Vectra. Global Vectra is claimed to be the largest private helicopter company in the country with a fleet of 23 aircrafts of various makes. Global Vectra offers its off-shore transportation services to oil & gas sector and also provides chartered services throughout the country. Global Vectra is a listed company, and it holds ISO: 9001-2008, 14001-2004 & OHSAS 18001-2000 certification. Global Vectra claims that it has been awarded contracts from renowned agencies including:
(i) Ministry of Home Affairs, Naxal Management Division
(ii) National Geophysical Research Institute
(iii) Atomic Mineral Directorate, Department of Atomic Energy
(iv) Fugro Airborne Surveys Corp.
(v) ONGC Group and Group II
(vi) GSPC
(vii) Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board
(viii) Government of Arunachal Pradesh
3. The petitioners submit that Global Vectra has obtained an NSOP from respondent No. 1 to carry on its operations, which has been renewed from time to time. The current NSOP of the petitioner is valid till 31.12.2012. The petitioners further submits that Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) have been issued under Section 133A of the Aircrafts Act, 1934 ( the Act ). The NSOP issued to the petitioner is governed by CAR dated 01.06.2010. The CAR sets out the process of making an application for obtaining NSOP and the nature & manner of security clearances involved. According to the petitioners, there is no concept of security clearance of a company or body corporate which applies for obtaining an NSOP. Security clearance is granted in respect of a specific persons/individuals holding specified position in the applicant company. It is the Chairman and the Directors of the petitioner company, who require security clearance, and they have been granted such clearance from time to time. Specific reference is made by the petitioners to the introduction contained in the CAR dated 01.06.2010, Section 3 Air Transport Series „C’Part III, Issue II bearing File No.: AV.14027/02/2002-AT.1 issued by respondent No. 1. The said introduction reads as follows:
“1. Introduction
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 134 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 specifies that no air transport service, other than a scheduled air transport service or an air transport service to which the provisions of sub rule (1) or (2) of rule 134 apply, shall be operated except with the special permission of the Central Government and subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose. In other words, permission of the government is required for operation of non scheduled air transport services. The power, in this regard, is delegated to the Director General and to the Joint Director General of Civil Aviation, based on which the permission is given by way of issuing a Non-scheduled Operator’s Permit (NSOP). This Civil Av
