1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4372 OF 2010. (Airport Restaurant, thro. its Prop. Sunilkumar M. Mathur Vs. Airport Authority of India and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Sr. Adv. with Shri Shashibhushan Wahane, Adv. and Shri S.S. Sirsat, Adv. for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, ASGI for Respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8. Shri A.M. Deshpande, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Adv. for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2011. The petitioner - Restaurant is operating at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport, Nagpur. The challenge is to communication dated 19.08.2010 issued by Regional Deputy Commissioner of Security Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), Government of India, rejecting for security clearance for functioning as ground handling agency. Shri Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Wahane, Advocate point out that the petitioner was handling in-flight catering services. Learned ASGI for respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 has invited our attention to two communications sent by Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home 2 Affairs), which are received by him for production and perusal, of this Court. These communications are made available as directed earlier by this Court The first communication is dated 09.06.2010 and letter is dated 22.07.2010. The clearance has been rejected on 09.06.2010. Perusal of communication dated 09.06.2010 does not show any reason having bearing on security clearance. Second communication solely depends on this earlier letter. We have heard learned ASGI in this respect and he is not in a position to substantiate that earlier communication dated 09.06.2010, could have been connected with any security problem. Shri Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate has, however, pointed out the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by Judge, Special Court (CBI ACB), Nagpur, in Criminal Application No. 13/2010. We have perused that order in Case No. CBC/RC/4(A)2009-NGP and on a final report under Section 173 read with Section 169 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge has found that evidence did not prima facie show any criminal conspiracy and, therefore, has accepted that report. Thus, no sufficient evidence to lodge prosecution has been found on record. In this situation, without observing anything more, we find that respondent Nos.6 & 7 shall re-examine the controversy afresh not uninfluenced by the facts leading to the Case No. CBC/RC/4(A)2009-NGP and take appropriate decision. Shri Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate has 3 contended that the petitioner should be extended an opportunity of hearing during said consideration. Shri Mishra, ASGI has rightly pointed out that looking to the sensitive issues, which may be involved, hearing and participation is not in public interest. If the respondents are inclined to accord security clearance it is not necessary to extend any opportunity in this respect to the petitioner. However, if they find any material which dis-entitles the petitioner to such clearance, the respondents may consider extending such an opportunity. Appropriate final decision on security clearance shall be taken within a period of two months from today. In this view of the matter, the order dated 19.08.2010 at Annexure-L is unsustainable and hence the same is quashed and set aside accordingly. Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE JUDGE NSN