The cancellation of an Air Operator Permit without disclosing reasons for denial of security clearance violates principles of natural justice, rendering the process invalid.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--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