1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.420 OF 2009 Akbar Travels of India (Pvt.) Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Union of India and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.P. Pandit and Ms. Ms. Tripti Kapadia i/b Joy Legal Consultants for the Petitioner. Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Afroz Shah for the Union of India. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for the State. Mr. Bhavik Manek i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 12th March, 2009. P.C. : 1. The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by RDCOS, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Mumbai, a copy of which was sent to the Petitioners. The order dated 24th February, 2009 reads as under : 2 “M/s. Akbar travels of India (P) Ltd. working for Air India applied for security clearance from BCAS to operate as Ground Handling agency at CSI, Mumbai. As the security verification has been found adverse, the said firm can not be granted security clearance. In view of the above, it is requested that all the AEPs issued to the above firm be surrendered to this office within a week time from the issuance of this letter. 2. The challenge is primarily on three counts. Firstly, the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no hearing was afforded to the Petitioner at any point of time before and after passing of the impugned order. Secondly, the order is arbitrary as there is no basis disclosed to the Petitioner for passing such an order which has civil consequences affecting the fundamental rights of the Petitioner to carry on the business which has been awarded to him by the instrumentalities of the State itself and without prejudice to the above contentions even if there were some adverse remarks in the security verification, they relate to the firm while the ground handling agency is manned by individuals. All the individual employees of the Petitioner have been given security clearance. Thus, the impugned order it is urged, has no legs to stand. 3 3. The necessary facts are that the Petitioner is carrying on business of providing various services both inside the tarmac area and inside the Airport Terminal building such as transportation of Airline Personnel such as Engineers, Aircraft Technicians to the Aircraft, Car Rental Services, Foreign Exchange Counter etc. This was awarded to the Petitioner by the competent authority after due verification. As already noticed vide order dated 24th February, 2009 the ground handling agency work was withdrawn from the Petitioner which compelled the Petitioner to file the present writ petition. This case was taken up for hearing on different dates and when the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court on 6th March, 2009, the Additional Solicitor General had produced the file containing the intelligence inputs on the basis of which the action was taken. However, the Bench allowed, on the request of the Additional Solicitor General, production of the underlying material which supported the remarks that have been made against the Petitioner. On that very date, the Court also recorded the statement of the Additional Solicitor General that except the ground handling operations all other activities 4 unrelated thereto which were being handled by the Petitioner were permitted to continue and the impugned order was limited only to ground handling activities. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner company has been carrying on such activities at Cochin, Chennai and Calicut as well. We must notice that the case was being taken up for hearing after a short interval and it appears that the Union of India and any of the Respondents for that matter have not filed any reply affidavit as yet. However, on the basis of the record produced, the arguments were advanced on behalf of the Respondents. 4. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that they were working at Calicut and/ or Chennai and Cochin in addition to Mumbai airport. All activities were permitted to continue in other airports except Mumbai. However, during the pendency of this Petition, we are informed that the ground handling activities of the Petitioner have been stopped at all other airports as well. Thus, the argument that there was non-application of mind does not stand established. 5 5. The record which has been produced before us indicates that there are inputs with regard to the activities of the Petitioner which has two directors who are spouses. It is not necessary for us to either comment on the merit or otherwise of those inputs. The argument that the remarks, if any, are against the firm and therefore are inconsequential because the individual employees of the Petitioner are subject to police verification, is again an argument without any merit. Firstly, in terms of Rules 90 and 92 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, ground handing services can be given to a licensee or any agency which has the security clearance of the Central Government. As the Central Government expressed some reservations, limited work from the Petitioner is allowed. The individual employees who receive police verification are obviously employees of the Petitioner and they hardly have any independent existence dehors the Petitioner company itself; the contract/ work has been awarded to the Petitioner company and not to the individual workers. Thus, we are also not impressed by the second contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. Lastly, we will deal with the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner in relation to violation of 6 the principles of natural justice. It is true that the maxim of audi alteram partem is applicable where the administrative or executive authorities pass orders which have civil consequences on the rights of individuals. It is a fundamental right of a citizen to carry on business subject to such restrictions as are permissible under law and this right can only be taken away by acting in accordance with law and adherence to the maxim of audi alteram partem. Admittedly, no pre or post decisional hearing was granted to the Petitioner in relation to the passing of the impugned order dated 24th February, 2009. The language of the impugned order itself is not very specific and the Petitioner was not actually aware of what activities have been adversely commented upon by the Respondents. The fact of the matter is that the order dated 24th February, 2009 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was expected of the Respondents to call upon the Petitioner to explain his position before the order was passed. Even after the order dated 24th February, 2009 was passed, the Respondents have on their own extended the period by a few days for the Petitioner to continue with the operation of the ground handling activities. However, at the subsequent stage they 7 have now withdrawn the said activities from the Petitioner though earlier it was so done at the request of Air India. If it was such an emergent security threat, then it was immaterial which was the company requesting the government to extend the period. The security of the airport can hardly be compromised. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to deal with and decide this contention on merits in view of the fact that we propose to direct the Respondents to grant a post decisional hearing to the Petitioner and affirm or withdraw the order dated 24th February, 2009. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot direct furnishing of the material shown to the Court, to the Petitioners before hearing. However, it will be open to the Respondents to put to the Petitioner the gist or conclusions of the report during the course of the hearing which the Petitioner will be at liberty to explain. Our direction will not be treated as a direction for disclosing the source of information or the methodology for collection of such information to the Petitioner. 6. For the reasons afore stated we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to provide a post decisional 8 hearing to the Petitioner and then to affirm or vacate the order dated 24th February, 2009 in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event not later than two weeks from today. The Learned Additional Solicitor General states that his statement made on 6th March, 2009 before the Court holds good. The writ petition is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.