JAGDISH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the orders dated 20th December, 1997 and 24th December, 1997 issued by the respondents. On 20th December, 1997 the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security had first given a direction that the airport entry passes issued to the employees of the Turkmenistan Airlines stood cancelled with immediate effect, but another order was issued on the same date informing the airlines that orders issued earlier regarding cancellation of airport passes of all the employees of the airlines stood withdrawn, however, any type of airport pass including commercial pass and photo identity card issued to the petitioner and any other staff of M/s.Deepika Travel, Cozy Travel, N-1, Connaught Place, middle circle, New Delhi stand cancelled. By order dated 24th December, 1997, photo identify cards etc. were directed to be surrendered to Regional Deputy Commissioner of Security.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed the General Manager of the Turkmenistan Airlines which had its office at N-1, BMC House, Connaught Place, New Delhi; that to discharge his duties as General Manager of the airlines, the petitioner was issued a pass in his official capacity by the respondents to enter the airport; that as General Manager of the airlines, the petitioner has a vital role to play for effective control of the management and of the airlines and regarding the operation of its services and that the airport pass was issued to the petitioner in the capacity of General Manager to discharge his duties incidental to his office work and was not issued in his personal capacity. By a fax message dated 20th December, 1997 the airlines was informed that airport entry passes issued to the employee of the airlines stood cancelled with immediate effect. This order was, however, modified to read that it was only the airport pass and/or commercial pass issued to the petitioner and any other staff of Deepika Travel or Cozy Travel that was cancelled and they were directed to surrender the same to the Regional Deputy Commissioner Board of Civil Aviation Security. The airlines as well as the petitioner wrote to the respondent on 23rd December, 1997 to withdraw their instructions and not to act upon the same, as the same would amount to interference in the discharge of his duties by the petitioner and also interference in the air service agreement entered into between the airlines and the Director General Civil Aviation. The respondents by letter dated 24th December, 1997 while acknowledging the aforesaid letter of 23rd December, 1997 called upon the airlines to get the photo identity card of the petitioner to be returned to the office of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security immediately. As already mentioned above, this order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents could not arrogate to themselves the power to act without notice preventing the petitioner from the privileges and advantages of discharging his duties as General Manager. It is submitted that the impugned orders issued by the respondents were clearly arbitrary and without jurisdiction on the ground of the same having been issued without following the principles of natural justice and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case before passing the said orders. The order is stated to be malafide, capricious, arbitrary and contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Smt.Maneka Gandhi Vs.Union of India and Another, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597; and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs.Chief Election Commissioner and Others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851.

(3.) In Smt.Maneka Gandhi Vs.Union of India and Another (Supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that even where there was no specific provision in a statute or rule made therein for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. It was held that even executive authorities when taking administrative action which involves any deprivations of or restrictions on inherent fundamental rights of citizens must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done and they have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even appearance of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or unfairness.