Delhi High Court - Orders
Mesco Aerospace Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 February, 2019
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6496/2018 & CM APPL. 24892/2018, 44386/2018
MESCO AEROSPACE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Ms Udita Singh, Mr Ambar Bhushan,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr Vijay Bhardwaj, Advocate for
R1,3/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 20.02.2019
1. By an order dated 27.11.2018, this Court noted the contention of the respondents that clearance has been denied to the petitioner on account of intelligence inputs, which are stated to be sensitive and confidential in nature. It is also affirmed on behalf of respondent no.3 that the said information relates to a variety of misdemeanours including, espionage, terror financing, linkage with the underworld, and serious economic offences. In this regard, respondent no.3 was directed to produce all intelligence reports available with it, if necessary in a sealed cover.
2. The respondent has produced a typed copy of certain reports in a sealed cover, which has been perused by this Court and the same have been returned to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Prima facie, it does not appear that any of the said intelligence reports allege any act of terror financing, linkage with the underworld etc. However, it is pointed out that there are charges of economic offences against the family of the promoters.
3. Mr Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that majority of the shareholding of the petitioner company (approximately 98%) is held by Ms Shipra Singh, and security clearance was granted to her pursuant to orders dated 23.08.2004 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 5735/2001. It is stated that thereafter, clearance was granted to the petitioner in the year 2005. He submits that there has been no change in the situation, except that the petitioner company has changed its name.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks time to take instructions whether there have been any developments after 2005, which may have a bearing on the grant of security clearance. If it is the case of the respondent that there is any material after 2005 which is relevant, the respondent shall produce the same before this Court in a sealed cover.
5. List on 14.03.2019.
6. Interim order to continue.
7. Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 20, 2019/pkv