Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
M/s Ar Airways Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 6109 of 2020; CMS No. 21956 of 2020, 21958 of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Security Clearance - Civil Aviation Regulations - Section 3, Series-C, Part-III - [11.3, 12] - The court set aside the Show Cause Notice and subsequent orders due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the petitioner was prejudiced by the lack of reasons for denial of security clearance, and the subsequent orders did not contain the reason for revocation of security clearance. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice in administrative actions affecting civil rights and highlighted that the absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reasons in the appellate order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice and subsequent orders issued by the respondent no. 2, which led to the cancellation of the Air Operator Permit of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the orders were in violation of the principles of natural justice as the Show Cause Notice did not provide reasons for the denial of security clearance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Show Cause Notice and subsequent orders were in violation of the principles of natural justice as they did not disclose the reasons for denial of security clearance to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons and a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to respond.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, lack of reasons for denial of security clearance, prejudicial effect on the petitioner's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of reasons for denial of security clearance and the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to respond constituted a violation of natural justice. The court emphasized that the absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reasons in the appellate order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Show Cause Notice and subsequent orders, leaving it open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2020 issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that based on the inputs received from the respondent no.3/Ministry of Home Affairs, the respondent no. 1/Ministry of Civil Aviation vide its letter dated 26.06.2020 has denied the renewal of security clearance of the petitioner. The Show Cause Notice mentioned that in view of the denial of security clearance, the petitioner did not remain in compliance with Para 11 of the Civil Aviation Regulations Section -3, Series-C, Part-III and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why its Air Operator Permit be not cancelled.
2. This petition was first listed before this Court on 08.09.2020 till when the petitioner was communicated the impugned orders dated 03.09.2020 and 04.09.2020, rejecting the approval of the Aircraft Operator Security Program of the petitioner relying upon the denial of security clearance to it and cancelling the Airport Entry Permits to its employees.
3. The petitioner was also communicated an order dated 07.09.2020 whereby the respondent no.2 cancelled the Air Operator Permit of the petitioner. The said communication inter alia recorded that the reply received from the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice was forwarded to the "Appropriate Authority for review and comments." The Appropriate Authority, that is the respondent no.1, reiterated its decision of denying the security clearance to the petitioner vide its letter dated 01.09.2020. As the security clearance is a pre-requisite for grant/renewal of the Air Operator Permit, the permit of the petitioner was cancelled.
4. This Court vide its interim order dated 08.09.2020 stayed the operation of the communication dated 07.09.2020 and 04.09.2020.
5. The petitioner thereafter filed an amended petition challenging the subsequent orders dated 03.09.2020, 04.09.2020 and 07.09.2020 as well.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice did not give the reasons for denial of the security clearance to the petitioner. Demand of such reasons was made by the petitioner even in its reply dated 10.08.2020 to the show cause notice, however, instead of supplying the same, the Impugned Orders dated 03.09.2020, 04.09.2020 and 07.09.2020 were issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. He submits that in absence of the reasons for denial of security clearance, the petitioner was clearly prejudiced in answering the Show Cause Notice.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the Impugned Orders dated 03.09.2020, 04.09.2020 and 07.09.2020 did not give the reasons for denial of security clearance to the petitioner. The said orders were in the nature of a "civil death" to the petitioner inasmuch as they stopped the operation of the petitioner. He submits that such order cannot, therefore, be sustained in absence of reasons.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has also relied upon the judgment and order dated 02.02.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.9131/2014, titled Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., wherein this Court in similar circumstances had directed the Show Cause Notice to be treated as withdrawn and directed the respondent no. 2 to serve a fresh notice on the petitioner therein for it to have an opportunity of giving an effective reply. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in A.K. Sharma vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors.,MANU/DE/0443/2002 to contend that the principles of natural justice would find application to the facts of the present case.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is only in the Counter Affidavit now filed by the respondent no.3, that it has been disclose
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing reasons and a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to respond in administrative actions affecting civil rights, highlighting that the absence ....
The cancellation of an Air Operator Permit without disclosing reasons for denial of security clearance violates principles of natural justice, rendering the process invalid.
Violation of principles of natural justice in revocation of Technical Clearance and consequential orders.
The impugned orders were violative of principles of natural justice, affecting the civil rights of the petitioner, and were therefore quashed and set aside.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed must be proportionate and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the failure to supply relevant docu....
The procedural fairness and reasonableness of the actions cannot be called into question as due opportunity was given to the Petitioner.
Authorities must provide reasoned decisions, avoid pre-judging issues, and adhere to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
