IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5399 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.G.NARAYANAN KUTTY,PALAKKAD PUTHEN PURA HOUSE,NAYATHODE PO,ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. O.V.MANIPRASAD MR. SAJU J PANICKER MR. LIJO KURIAN JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT, B.BLOCK,RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN,SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, AUROBINDO MARG,NEW DELHI,PIN 110 003. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION, OPPOSITE SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI,PIN 110 003. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITY, BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY, A WING,1-3 FLOOR, JENPATH BHAVAN, JENPATH,NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SECURITY,BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY, SOUTHERN REGION,CHENNAI AIRPORT,CHENNAI 600 027. 5. THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED KOCHI AIRPORT PO, NEDUMBASSERY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,PIN 683 111. 6. THE AIR INDIA LIMITED,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI,PIN 400 021. 7. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 ADV. MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G OF INDIA R5 MR. E.K.NANDAKUMAR , MR. A. K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR MR. K.JOHN MATHAI, MR. P.BENNY THOMAS , MR. P.GOPINATH R7 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 5399 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to see that Exhibits P8 and P9 orders are strictly complied with by the 5th respondent. ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to see that the 5th respondent is not performing airline and cargo security functions in Cochin International Airport and also to engage the 6the respondent to conduct the airline and cargo security functions in the Cochin International Airport. iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to engage the 6th respondent to conduct the airline security functions of the foreign airlines and cargo security functions in the Cochin International Airport. iv. Issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a proper investigation regarding the unauthorised functioning of airline and cargo security functions by the 5th respondent in the Cochin International Airport and to take appropriate actions in the matter. v. Issue a Writ of Mandamus order or direction directing the first respondent to direct a proper investigation/enquiry in the security lapses occurred in Cochin International Airport and take necessary action against the persons concerned for such security lapses. vi. Such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P. (C) No. 5399 of 2011 2 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is only a security official, employed under the sixth respondent. Going by the nature of relief sought for in the Writ Petition, it is seen that, the petitioner wants to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to engage the 6th respondent to perform the airline and security functions in the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (5th respondent) instead of its being permitted to be done by the 5th respondent itself. In other words, the petitioner (employee) appears to be projecting cause for the 6th respondent (employer), obviously when there is no such claim for the 6th respondent (employer). The relevant paragraph (paragraph 2) of the writ petition is reads as follows: “The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He worked in Indian Navy for 15 years and discharged on pension. Now, he is working as a contract employee in the security department of the Air India Limited in Cochin International Airport. He is qualified to hold the post in the Airline Security. Petitioner is having qualification such diploma in Mechanical Engineering, Equivalent graduation from Indian Navy, certificate in Baggage Inspection from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (X-ray BIS). He also underwent various courses in Airline Security and handling of the dangerous goods conducted by his employer M/s Air India. The petitioner is deeply interested in the proper security and management in the 5th respondent Airport as he is employed in the Airport”. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner does not have any 'locus standi' to file this writ petition. No valid W.P. (C) No. 5399 of 2011 3 ground has been raised in support of the contentions in the writ petition. Interference is declined. Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd