Kerala High Court
Vinod C Krishnan vs The Director General on 11 June, 2020
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1942
WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONERS :-
1 VINOD C KRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE, ELAPPARA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS JUNIOR EXECUTIVE,
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
TRIVANDRUM.
2 JOMON M, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA,
JO BHAVAN, PANAPETTY, PORUVAZHI P.O,
SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS
SENIOR ASSISTANT, FIRE SERVICES, INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM.
3 AJITH KUMAR N.R, AGED 46 YEARS,
SAJITH BHAVAN, VETTIKAVALA P.O, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT, FIRE SERVICES, INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS :-
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY,
INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NORTHERN
ACCESS RD, NEAR AEROCITY, MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI,
DELHI - 110 037.
2 THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR,
TRIVANDRUM INTERENATIONAL AIRPORT, VALIYATHURA
P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 008.
3 THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER,
TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, VALIYATHURA
P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 008
BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM
BY ADV. SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH
BY SRI.P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F)
-: 2 :-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of June 2020 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers :-
"(i) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders, or directions commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to issue Airport Entry Passes to the petitioners, without taking into consideration the pendency of Crime No.432/2015 of the Karipoor Police Station."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had been continuously issued with Airport Entry Permits in connection with their employment in the Airport. It is submitted that an FIR had been registered on 11.6.2015 with regard to an incident which occurred in the Airport. The petitioners had been granted anticipatory bail by Exts.P5 and P6 orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was on a finding that there was no overt act WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F) -: 3 :- attributed to the petitioners that anticipatory bail had been granted to them. Even thereafter it is submitted that Airport Entry Permits were being issued to the petitioners. However, by Ext.P7 proceedings dated 28.4.2020, the 2 nd respondent informed the petitioners that the Airport Entry Permits could not be issued to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the denial of Airport Entry Permits, when there is no conviction against the petitioners, was illegal and unsustainable especially in view of the observations of this Court in the orders granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that Ext.P7 is a proceeding issued by the 1 st respondent to the 2nd respondent, a copy of which was served on the petitioners. Ext.P7 would show that the 1st respondent had considered the fact that the petitioners were arrayed as accused in Crime No.432 of 2015 under Sections 143, 147, 332, 353 and 304 read with Section 149 IPC of the Karipur Police Station. Relying on clause 11.10 of the Airport Entry Permit Guidelines as also referring to clause 11.9.1 of the Guidelines, the 1 st respondent had directed that Airport Entry Permits may not be issued to the petitioners. WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F) -: 4 :-
5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 2 and 3. The Airport Entry Permit Guidelines has been produced as Ext.R2(a). Ext.R2(b) proceedings has also been produced, by which, the petitioners had been redeployed in posts, which did not require their entry into the Aerodrome. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that it is on the basis of the decision communicated by the 1 st respondent that the Airport Entry Permits were denied to the petitioners. It is submitted that clause 11.10 of Ext.R2(a) would specifically show that it is not for respondents 2 or 3 to take a decision with regard to Airport Entry Permits and it is for the DG, BCAS to pass orders in cases where an FIR is registered and a case is pending before any court in India. It is submitted that it is on the basis of the decision of the DG, BCAS that Airport Entry Permits were denied to the petitioners and that an observation made in an order granting anticipatory bail cannot be relied upon by the petitioners in view of the provisions of the Guidelines.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that clause 11.9 of the Guidelines specifically mentions that Airport Entry Permits shall not be issued in case applicants are convicted of serious crimes. It is submitted that in the absence of conviction WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F) -: 5 :- in any crime, the action of the respondents in denying Airport Entry Permits is completely unsustainable. It is contended that the only provision relied upon in Ext.P7 order as well as in the counter affidavit is clause 11.9.1 and that as such the respondents, who have no case that the petitioners stand convicted of any serious crime, cannot rely on any other provision to deny passes to them. Though the first prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exhibit P7 order, the learned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioners submitted that in case this Court is not inclined to pass interim orders directing the issue of Airport Entry Permits, the writ petition itself may be dismissed so that recourse can be had to legal remedies.
7. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side and have gone through the pleadings and the materials placed on record. Airport Entry Permits have been denied to the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P7. Ext.P7 refers to clause 11.10 as well as clause 11.9.1 of Airport Entry Permit Guidelines. Clause 11.9 specifies that Airport Entry Permit shall not be issued, if during performances of background check, it is determined that the applicant was convicted of certain serious crimes specifically referred to in clauses 11.9.1 and 11.9.2. Clause 11.10 provides WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F) -: 6 :- that the decision of DG, BCAS shall be final in cases where an FIR is registered and/or a case is pending before the Court in India. Clause 11.12 provides that if a person is found involved in any crime or misuse of the Airport Entry Permit, it shall be the responsibility of the sponsoring agency to communicate the same to the issuing authority immediately for cancellation. It is therefore evident that background checks are called for with regard to the issuance of Airport Entry Permits. Clause 11.9 would make it clear that permits are not to be issued where the applicants are convicted of serious crimes. Clause 11.10 provides that the decision of the DG, BCAS in respect of Airport Entry Permits will be final in cases where FIR is registered. Therefore, it is clear that where criminal cases are pending, it is for the 1 st respondent to consider whether permits are to be issued or not.
8. In the instant case, it is clear that a crime is pending against the petitioners and the same has also been charge-sheeted. Ext.P7 proceedings had been issued by the DG, BCAS denying Airport Entry Permits pursuant to which respondents 2 and 3 have also redeployed the petitioners by Ext.R2(b) proceedings in other departments where entry into Airport is not contemplated. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners have been WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F) -: 7 :- put to no prejudice due to the denial of Airport Entry Permits because of the redeployment effected by Ext.R2(b). Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P7 order declining the Airport Entry Permits on the ground that a serious crime is pending trial as against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the contention that Ext.P7 as well as the counter affidavit refers only to clause 11.9.1 of Ext.R2(a) cannot come to the aid of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have already been redeployed in posts which do not require Airport entry, I am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the denial of Airport Entry Permits to them.
In the above view of the matter, I am not inclined to issue the orders as sought for. The writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/11.6.2020 WP(C).No.10456 OF 2020(F) -: 8 :- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT ENTRY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT ENTRY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTQ EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT PERMIT ISSUED TO THE THIRD PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RRESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 432/2015 OF THE KARIPOOR POLICE STATION DATED, 11-06-2015 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A NO. 4005/2015 DATED, 20-07-2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A 3970/2015 DATED , 20-07-2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 28-4-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO. RD/BCAS/TRV/PAEP/2020 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.A NO. 2/19 IN CRL.M.C NO. 8250/18 DT 28-1- 2019 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE AIRPORT ENTRY PERMIT (AEP) GUIDELINES, 2019, ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION.
EXT.R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER No.AAI/TV/INTERNAL TRANS.2020/401 DATED 27.05.2020.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE