Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12911 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
CAPT. PEDRO GUILHERME DA VEIGA PEREIRA E OLIVEIRA ARTILHEIRO, AGED 47 YEARS RUA DOS MORANGOS, NO.129, 2890-555 ALCOCHETE, PORTUGAL, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR. JAIN GEORGE P, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.
P.Y.GEORGE, RESIDING AT P2C HEERA VASTUGRAMAM, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682039, KERALA.
BY ADV AYSHA ABRAHAM ADV.YASHWANTH SHENOY RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, NEW DELHI-
110001.
2 DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, OPP. SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, AURBINDO MARG, NEW DELHI-110003.
3 BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, A WING, I-III FLOOR, JANPATH BHAWAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001.
4 DY. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OOLIMUGHAL, KAKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.
5 INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED, THROUGH ITS CEO & WHOLETIME DIRECTOR, MR. RONOJOY DUTTA, CENTRAL WING, GROUND FLOOR, THAPAR HOUSE
124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001.
6 CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VIKAS KHURMA, SURVEY NO.26 & 27, 3RD FLOOR, BANDARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, UGANAVADI POST, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-562110.
BY ADVS.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., CGC MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN ADITYA VENUGOPALAN KURIAKOSE VARGHESE V.SHYAMOHAN ANUSHMA M.KHAN SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER OTHER PRESENT:
SR.ADV.SRI.ARUN KUMAR FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.12911 of 2021 ----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2021
['AYSHA ABRAHAM', 'DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N S', 'CGC', 'MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN', 'ADITYA VENUGOPALAN']
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to allow the entry of the Petitioner into India for a period of 90 days to ensure completion of his documentation and relocation back to his home country.
ii. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to restrain the Respondent No.2 from issuing FATA to any other persons other than employees or persons directly under the control and supervision of the operator.
iii. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to restrain the Respondent No.3 from issuing 'security clearance' to any other persons other than employees or persons directly under the control and supervision of the operator.
iv. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Director General of the Respondent No.2 and 3 to conduct an inquiry into the involvement of officers responsible for issue of FATA and security clearance in violation of the Regulations to the Petitioner as well as other Pilots operating for all Air Operators.
v. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondent No.4 to conduct an inquiry and initiate appropriate proceedings including criminal prosecution for violation of labour statutes.
vi. Pass such other further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. When the matter came up for consideration today, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is limiting prayer to visit India for a short period to take his belongings from an apartment at Kochi and he may be allowed to raise all other legal contentions before the appropriate authorities in accordance to law.
3. When this submission was made, I requested the ASGI and the counsel for the 6th respondent about their opinion. The Senior Counsel who appeared for the 6th respondent submitted that if the intention of the petitioner is only to collect his belongings from the apartment and to take it back to his native place, the 6th respondent will not stand in the way. He can use his employment visa itself for that purpose alone. The ASGI submitted that if the 6th respondent agrees for the same, the 1st respondent will not stand in the way on condition that the petitioner will be here in India, only for one week and the purpose is only to take his belongings from the apartment in Kochi and he will leave the country within one week.
4. In the light of these submissions, I think this writ petition can be disposed recording the submission of respondents 1 and 6.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:
1. The petitioner is free to visit India for a period of one week to take his belongings from the apartment situated at Kochi. After reserving the flight tickets, the petitioner shall inform the 6th respondent and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) about the date of his arrival and departure.
2. All other contentions raised in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate authorities in accordance to law. The petitioner is free to submit appropriate representation for that purpose before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority will do the needful in accordance to law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12911/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SIGMA AVIATION SERVICES LTD. DATED
26.9.2016.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND AIRLINE ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED DATED 12.4.2017.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT VISA STAMPED ON THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING ALLIANCE AIR, NEW DELHI AS THE EMPLOYER AND HAVING THE VALIDITY FROM 21.4.2017 TO 20.4.2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PLACE BY THE
