Reasonable Restrictions Apply to Public Access at WCL Offices: Bombay High Court Upholds 'Persona-Non-Grata' Designation

The Bombay High Court has firmly established that the fundamental right to move freely does not grant individuals an absolute right to obstruct the functioning of public offices. In a significant judgment, the bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas dismissed a petition filed by a former employee, Shri Kishor, who challenged the decision of Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCL) to declare him "persona-non-grata" and bar him from entering their premises for three years.

A History of Confrontation

The petitioner, a former employee whose services were terminated in 2004, identified himself as a social activist who frequently visited WCL premises to address employee grievances. However, WCL management viewed these visits differently. According to the respondent, the petitioner repeatedly submitted baseless complaints with the intent to malign and harass top officials.

Despite prior interventions by the court in 2014 and specific conditions imposed in 2021—including an agreement by the petitioner to maintain good conduct—WCL asserted that the petitioner continued to violate visitor protocols and harass staff. Following a breach of these conditions, WCL issued a fresh order declaring him an "unwelcome person," prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Arguments

The petitioner argued that his actions were performed in his capacity as a social activist helping aggrieved individuals and that the restriction on his entry was arbitrary and contrary to law.

Conversely, counsel for WCL, Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, argued that the petitioner's presence was not for genuine advocacy but rather a persistent effort to disrupt public administration and intimidate officials. The company contended that his entry posed a security risk and severely hampered the day-to-day operations of the public sector establishment.

Legal Analysis and the Threshold of "Reasonable Restrictions"

The Court looked closely at the scope of Article 19 of the Constitution. While citizens enjoy the right to move throughout the country, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court emphasized that there is no employer-employee relationship, as the petitioner had been terminated decades ago, and therefore, he had no vested right to roam the premises at will.

The Bench placed significant weight on the precedent of * Sagar Hanumanta Daunde and anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2024)*, which clarified that individuals do not have a fundamental right to harass public servants under the guise of filing complaints.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the following principles in its ruling:

• "No individual has a fundamental right to harass the public officers performing lawful duty by repeatedly filing complaints and appeals on the same subject matter or casting personal aspersions against them."
• "The conduct of the petitioner and intention to visit the office of the respondents is not bonafide, and his entry in office is with a view to obstruct the smooth functioning of the office."
• "Petitioner cannot claim that he has absolute right to visit respondent’s offices. The petitioner can file complaints online, through post and also seek information by taking help of technology."

The Verdict and Its Impact

In dismissing the petition, the Court highlighted that while the right to submit complaints against illegality remains, there is a clear distinction between institutional activism and personal harassment. By endorsing WCL's decision, the High Court has reinforced the protection of public offices from individuals who abuse administrative grievance redresses mechanisms to impede official duties.

This ruling serves as a reminder that public institutions, while mandated to be transparent, are entitled to enforce security and operational safeguards to protect their staff from bad-faith actors.