Bombay High Court
Kishor S/O. Jairam Chakole vs The Western Coalfields Ltd., Thr. ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:10266-DB
WP 1627-2025-J.doc 1/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1627 OF 2025
Shri Kishor S/o. Jairam Chakole,
Aged about 58 years., Occ.- Social Activist,
R/o. Plot No. 136, Ayurvedic
Layout, Umred Road,
Sakkardara, Nagpur-440009 ....PETITIONER
....VERSUS....
1) The Western Coalfields Ltd.
Through its Chairman Cum Managing Director
Futala Road, Coal Estates, Civil Lines,
Nagpur - 440001
2) The Western Coalfields Ltd.
Through its Deputy General Manager (P/IR),
Futala Road, Coal Estates, Civil Lines,
Nagpur - 440001
3) Union of India
Through its Secretary,
For Ministry of Coal,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001. ....RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.J.Chakole, Petitioner-in-Person.
Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Shri S.A.Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
WP 1627-2025-J.doc 2/10
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 16/09/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 06/10/2025
JUDGMENT (PER: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)
Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent of the petitioner-in-
person and Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
4. The issue involved in this petition is, whether the
respondent(s) can declare the petitioner as "persona-non-grata"
and consequently, can issue the order restraining the
petitioner to enter into the premises of Western Coalfields
Limited Headquarters, Nagpur and in all its
Areas/establishments for a period of three years.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, earlier, he was
working with the respondent(s), but his services came to be
terminated in the year 2004. He is a social activist and used to
file various complaints for the employees and other aggrieved
persons with and against the officials of the respondent(s)
and made an attempt to redress the grievance of the people.
Accordingly, from time to time, he visited the offices of the
respondent(s) for redressal of grievances and helped the
aggrieved persons.
6. The respondent(s) vide order dated 07/10/2024
declared the petitioner as "persona-non-grata", since many
complaints submitted by the petitioner were verified, it was
found to be baseless. Writing baseless complaints, according
to the respondent(s), with intentional act were to malign the
image of the top officials of the WCL. The respondent(s)
advanced a reason that, the entry of the petitioner into the
Public Sector Office is viewed with an intent of threat to the
security of their establishment and that, despite repeated
attempts to make the petitioner understand the gravity of
situation; it has not lead to any fruitful results. The order
further states that visit by the petitioner to the offices has been
found to mislead the visitors entry protocol besides,
unauthorised visiting officials during working hours. The
respondent(s) on early occasions also has/have passed
similar orders but unfortunately, the behaviour of the
petitioner did not change.
7. The petitioner had earlier preferred the Writ
Petition No. 2741 of 2013 before this Court, since on earlier
occasion, also he was declared as "persona-non-grata" and was
not permitted to enter into the office of WCL. The said Writ
Petition was decided on 03/02/2014, in which, this Court has
observed that, the petitioner, being out of employment,
cannot, as of right, be permitted to enter the office as
relationship between parties appears to be strained. It was
observed that however, if the petitioner requires any
assistance, he can always file an application before the
Competent Forum with suitable request. With the aforesaid
clarification, the petition was disposed of.
8. According to the petitioner, the order passed by
respondent(s) on 07/10/2024 declaring him "Persona-non-
grata" is contrary to law.
9. Per contra, Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has contended that the
unnecessary visits of the petitioner to the office of
respondents affects smooth functioning of the office and
consequently public at large, as work is disturbed. The
petitioner has been making various baseless complaints to the
authorities, and his entry to the Public Sector Office is viewed
with an intent of threat to the Security of establishment. Thus
she contends that rightly order was passed against the
petitioner who is in a habit of disturbing the smooth working
of the public office.
10. We have taken into consideration rival contention,
so also perused record of case.
11. The principle of "Persona-non-grata" literally
means "an unwelcome person." In international relations,
said principle is used in diplomatic relationship and in non-
diplomatic sense, declaring a person as "Persona-non-grata" is
essentially a way of withdrawing acceptance, recognition, or
entry.
12. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were
terminated by the respondents long back in the year 2004.
Thus, it is clear that there is no employer-employee
relationship. Since the relationship of master and servant is
not in existence between the petitioner and the respondents,
the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, say that he has
absolute access to the office. His entry to the office is required
to be considered from the administration and the work which
is done in the public office. Record of case shows that the
petitioner on earlier occasions was also declared as "Persona-
non-grata", more particularly, by way of order dated
27/10/2021. Thereafter, at request of the petitioner, same was
revoked on certain terms and conditions including a
condition that he would maintain good conduct with all the
officials of department of W.C.L.
13. Thereafter, due to breach of the conditions
imposed, again the petitioner was declared as "Persona-non-
grata" by the respondents but his behaviour did not change.
The aforesaid fact clearly shows that the conduct of the
petitioner and intention to visit the office of the respondents
is not bonafide, and his entry in office is with a view to
obstruct the smooth functioning of the office. It is needless to
mention that the person cannot, as a matter of right, claim to
have authority to harass the public officials. Recently, in the
case of Sagar Hanumanta Daunde and anr. V/s. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr. reported in 2024
SCC OnLine Bom 3711, the following relevant observations
are reproduced below :-
"5) Further, we affirm that no
individual has a fundamental right to harass the public
officers performing lawful duty by repeatedly filing
complaints and appeals on the same subject matter or
casting personal aspersions against them when
dissatisfied with their responses. In our view, such
threats hinder the smooth functioning of any public
office. If the Circular is set aside, it would render it
nearly impossible for public office staff to perform their
duties without fear.
6) We do not, in any way, seek to
defend public servants who fail to fulfill their duties.
However, we strongly oppose any actions that hamper
the work of officers and staff who are unfairly targeted
with malafide intention. We find the decision in
question to be conscious and well-considered. We see
no reason to set it aside.
7) .....
8) We clarify that the
authorities/officers cannot refuse to entertain fresh
complaints of the Petitioners, even on the same subject
matter, if made after a reasonable period or so, based on
this Circular.........."
14. The petitioner, claims to be an activist and visit
various offices of WCL and has been found to violate the
visitor's entry protocol, besides unauthorizedly visiting
officials during the working hours. It is alleged that, the
petitioner is writing malicious letters, levelling false
allegations against the officers and management of the
respondent establishment with an intention to harass and
blackmail them.
15. No doubt, petitioner has right to file complaints,
pointing out the illegality, but at the same time, it cannot be
forgotten that filing, frivolous complaints and repeated
complaints burdens the public officers. Petitioner cannot
claim that he has absolute right to visit respondent's offices.
The petitioner can file complaints online, through post and
also seek information by taking help of technology.
16. The right of a citizen to move freely throughout
territory of India, is also required to be considered from the
angle of reasonable restrictions which are recognised by the
Constitution. But at the same time, the petitioner cannot be
given free hand to visit the public offices which would
certainly affect the public administration. Even fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India
are not absolute and are subjected to reasonable restrictions.
In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no
case is made out by the petitioner and therefore petition is
dismissed.
17. Rule is discharged.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
B.T.Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/10/2025 21:09:26
