The court emphasized the primacy of national security and regulatory provisions in the decision-making process, even when challenged on grounds of natural justice and financial impact.

H.L. Gokhale, C.J.

Heard Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel with Mr.S.Vanchinathan, learned counsel in support of this appeal. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appears for the first respondent and Mr.A.J.Javad, learned counsel appears for the second respondent.

2. The short facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-

(a) The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in ground handling services for the aircrafts. One of the directors of this company namely, Mr.Sivakumar Sinnarajah, a person of Sri Lankan origin, and who is a citizen of U.S.A, is holding 66.18% FDI in the appellant-company. The Srilankan Airlines Limited entered into an agreement with the appellant for supply of manpower on 11th October, 2007 for a period of two years for their operations in the Chennai Airport, and the said contract was extended up to October, 2012.

(b) For conducting the ground handling services at the airport, the employees of the appellant are required to have passes issued by the second respondent-Airport Authority of India. As far as the security at the airport is concerned, the second respondent is guided by the advice of the first respondent –Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), which is under the control of Ministry of Civil Aviation.

(c) On 10th January, 2010, one of the staff members of the appellant company was prevented by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel at the airport stating that the passes issued to the appellant were withdrawn. The appellant, therefore, approached the first respondent, only to get a copy of the letter of the same date signed by the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Chennai addressed to the Airport Director of the Airports Authority of India, Chennai in continuance to the earlier office letter dated 8th January, 2010. The letter stated that since the appellant company had not been cleared for security purpose, the Airport Entry Pass Permit (AEPP) issued to them were taken back with effect from the evening of 11th January, 2010.

(d) The appellant, therefore, filed writ petition bearing W.P.No.622 of 2010 immediately on 11th January, 2010 and prayed for the records relating to this communication dated 10th January, 2010 be called and be quashed, and the first respondent be directed to grant security clearance to the appellant for their ground handling operations at Chennai National and International Airports.

(e) When the petition was filed, the respondents initially agreed not to enforce their communication dated 8th January, 2010 for three days where after, the learned single Judge granted interim injunction not to enforce to the same.

(f) The first respondent filed their counter and sought for vacating the interim order. In the counter, it was stated that the security verification of the company was found to be adverse and therefore the appellant could not be granted clearance. As far as the letter dated 8th January, 2010 mentioned in the communication dated 10th January, 2010 is concerned, it was stated that it was an internal communication and hence, it could not be furnished to the appellant.

(g) The respondents placed before the learned single Judge for his perusal the files pertaining to the letter dated 8th January, 2010 and the prior notings including those of the Cabinet Secretariat dated 12th June, 2009.

3. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before the learned single Judge that the earlier the appellant had been cleared for the security purpose. The record of Mr.Sivakumar Sinnarajah is otherwise very clear and that he has not at all involved in any of the LTTE operations, rather he is one of the victims thereof, and that there was denial of principles of natural justice in the manner in which the decision has been taken. The impugned action will lead to unjustified financial loss to the appellant company and also loss of jobs to its employees numbering around 150.

4. As again