Associated Hotels Pvt. vs Union Of India And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4493 Del

$~4
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                Judgment delivered on: 16th September, 2014

+        W.P.(C) 4749/2011

ASSOCIATED HOTELS PVT.                   ..... Petitioner
                 Represented by: Mr. Rishi Aggarwala and
                 Ms. Malavika Lal, Advs.

                       versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                   ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with
                  Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Rajul Jain, Advs. for
                  R1 to R3 with Mr. W. Prakash, DCIO, IB (MHA).
                  Mr. Digvinay Rai, Adv. for R4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction to quash and setting aside the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by respondent no. 3 as under:

"Consequent upon receipt of an adverse report against Directors of M/s. Associates Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Catering Company), Regd. Office at DB House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063, I am directed to convey you that the application dated 26.07.2010 filed with office of RDCOS, BCAS, Mumbai by M/s. Associates Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter mentioned as the said Company) for security clearance, is hereby rejected.

2. In view of the fact that the said Company has not been issued with the security clearance by this Bureau, the following instructions shall be strictly adhered to by the concerned entities with immediate effect:-

i) No approval of the Security Programme filed by the said Company with RDCOS, BCAS shall be granted. The Security Programme of the said Company if approved by the RDCOS, BCAS shall be cancelled forthwith.

ii) No aircraft operator shall enter into an agreement with the said Company uplifting aircraft catering supplies. Any agreement for uplifting aircraft catering supplies signed by any aircraft operator operating to and from the airports in India shall be terminated forthwith.

iii) No aircraft operator shall be allowed to uplift aircraft catering supplies from the said Company.

iv) No Airport Entry Pass shall be issued to the said Company.

v) All Airport Entry Passes issued to the employees of the said Company, are hereby cancelled with immediate effect.

vi) In order to prevent access of the said Company's persons for aircraft catering supplies at the airports in the country, these directions shall be notified by the concerned CASO, ASG (CISF) for strict compliance by their security personnel at the airports."

2. Vide order dated 03.04.2014, while relying upon the case of Ramesh Narang v. Union of India and ors. in SLP (Civil) No. 16309/2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 3013/2013 and 3014/2013, wherein the Apex Court had directed the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security to file a fresh report from IB in respect of security perception of petitioners therein, this court directed the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to review the security angle relating to petitioner company by approaching the IB for a review, whereafter a fresh report shall be prepared and court shall be apprised of the same.

3. Pursuant to said order, a report dated 30.04.2014 has been produced for perusal of this Court. On perusal of the said report, it is revealed that the

allegations are same as pointed out in the old report against most of the Directors of the petitioner company. The reports produced in the sealed cover are seen and returned to Mr. W. Prakash, DCIO, (IB), MHA, Govt. of India.

4. At this stage, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present company has been sold out to Mr. Arshad Yasin Patel and Ahmed Yasin Patel. Since the shares of the petitioner company have been transferred in the name of the aforesaid persons, the issue in the present petition has become infructuous.

5. Accordingly, above named persons, who purchased the petitioner company, are at liberty to make representation before Bureau of Civil Aviation Security as per the procedure.

6. I note the petitioner company has been enjoying the stay order dated 11.07.2011. Since the issue raised in the instant petition has become infructuous, therefore, interim order dated 11.07.2011 stands vacated. Consequently, CM. NO. 9615/2011 is dismissed as infructuous.

7. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, i.e., respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the representation made by the aforesaid persons within three months from the date of the representation.

8. In view of above, instant petition is dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 jg