M/S Air One Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India

$~275 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11297/2018 and CM No. 43836/2018 M/S AIR ONE AVIATION PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr Ravjyot Singh, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr Dhruv Pande, Advocate for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 22.10.2018 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Director (Policy), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), whereby the approval granted by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security for the security programme of the petitioner has been revoked with immediate effect.

2.

The petitioner is engaged in the Business of Air Charter Services and the import of the impugned order is that the petitioner is no longer able to carry on its business.

3.

The impugned order has been passed pursuant to an allegation that one Mr Upendra Rai has been granted Aerodrome Entry Pass (AEP) on a

false premise that he is an employee of the petitioner whereas, in fact, he is not so. It is alleged that Mr Upendra Rai is not required to visit the Airports in other cities and therefore, there was no requirement for him to be issued the AEP. It is further alleged that the petitioner having sponsored Mr Upendra Rai, has violated the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 and jeopardised the security of aerodrome in question. 4.

The petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Secretary under Rule 4 of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 and the same is pending before the concerned Appellate Authority. The petitioner's predicament is that its appeal has not been heard since the concerned officer (Appellate Authority) is on leave.

5.

It is seen that the impugned order does not disclose any particular Rule of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 that is stated to have been violated by the petitioner. The only allegation made in the impugned order is that the CBI has registered an FIR against the petitioner, its employees amongst other persons in connection with the issuance of AEP to Mr Upendra Rai. It is alleged that the petitioner "appointed Shri Upendrai Rai in order to get an AEP with dubious means, thereby committing criminal misconduct."

6.

According to the petitioner, Mr Upendra Rai is one of its employees and, therefore, it had forwarded his application for an AEP. 7.

Prima facie, the impugned order appears to be unsustainable for the reason that it does not expressly indicate as to which Rule of the Aircraft (Security) Rules, 2011 or the security programme has been violated.

However, this Court is refraining from examining the matter since the petitioner's appeal is pending before the concerned authority. 8.

However, the impugned order will not be given effect to till the petitioner's appeal is finally heard and decided. 9.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 10.

The pending application stands disposed of.

11.

Order dasti under signature of Court Master.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 22, 2018 RK