Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kalai Vani vs The Manager on 1 November, 2007

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                        PRESENT:

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

 THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939

              WP(C).No. 34276 of 2016 (H)
              ----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

           KALAI VANI,
           AGED:30 YEARS, D/O RAJSEKHAR,
           CABIN CREW,
           INFLIGHT SERVICES, (IFS DEPARTMENT),
           AIR INDIA LIMITED, CALICUT-673001.

          BY ADVS.SRI.K.A.JALEEL
                  SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

        1. THE MANAGER,
          INFLIGHT SERVICES,
          AIR INDIA LIMITED,
          NEW DELHI-10 001.

       2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
          BCAS, "A" WING, 1ST-IIIRD FLOOR,
          JANPATH BHAWAN, JNPATH,
          NEW DELHI-10001.

        3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SECURITY,
          BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY (BCAS),
          CHENNAI AIRPORT, CHENNAI-27.

          R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
                        SRI.P.GOPINATH
                        SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
                        SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
                        SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
                        SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
          R2 & R3 BY SRI.N. NAGARESH, ASG
                     SRI. MANU S., CGC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
      ADMISSION ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME
      DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL

WP(C).No. 34276 of 2016 (H)
----------------------------

                        APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

P1       TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/11/2007 ISSUED
         BY AIR INDIA CHARTERS LIMITED, SHOWING
         APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER

P2       TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM AIR INDIA
         CHARTERS DATED 6/12/2007 SHOWING RESIGNATION OF
         THE PETITIONER

P3       TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/1/2010 ISSUED
         BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, AIR INDIA CONFIRMING
         APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER

P4       TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.20/2014
         REGISTERED BY NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION ON
         8/1/2014

P5       TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 8/8/2016 IN
         CRL M.A. NO.8018/2016 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 5015/2016

P6       TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATE 4/10/2016 IN CRL
         M.A. NO.8018/2016 IN CRL M.C. NO.5015/2016
         EXTENDING THE STAY ORDER

P7       TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED
         20/1/14 ISSUED BY AIR INDIA LIMITED TO THE
         PETITIONER

P8       TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/3/2014 ISSUED
         BY AIR INDIA LIMITED RE-INSTATING THE
         PETITIONER

P9       TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/3/2016
         ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FORWARDING THE
         APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR AEP

P10      TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.5.2017 ISSUED
         BY THE SR. AGM-PERSONNEL, AIR INDIA TO THE
         DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION
         SECURITY, CHENNAI

WP(C).No. 34276 of 2016 (H)
----------------------------

P11      TRUE COPY OF the LETTER DATED 7.6.2017 ISSUE BY
         THE ASST. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION
         SECURITY (BCAS) CHENNAI TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

              NIL
                                       TRUE COPY




                                      P.S. TO JUDGE
EL



                  P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

                   -------------------------------

                 W.P.(C.) No.34276 of 2016

            ----------------------------------------------

          Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2017


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an Air Hostess. There is a criminal case against the petitioner. Since there is a criminal case against the petitioner, she needs the permission of the second respondent for entry in the airports. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application for the said purpose to the second respondent. Exts.P10 and P11 are the recommendations of the authorities on the application preferred by the petitioner. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the matter was taken up today, is for a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the application preferred by the petitioner as referred to in Exts.P10 and P11 recommendations, within a time frame.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C.) No. 34276 of 2016 2 as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on the application preferred by the petitioner, in the light of the recommendation contained in Ext.P11, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for compliance before the second respondent.

sd/-


                                          P.B. SURESH KUMAR,
SKS                                             JUDGE


                              //TRUE COPY//




                              P.A. TO JUDGE