JASKARAN SINGH REKHI  Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 1 of 9
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st January, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 10851/2020 & CM APPL. 34026/2020
JASKARAN SINGH REKHI ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rajesh Mahindru, Advocate.
(M:9810194135 )
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Respondent s
Through : Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Shalini
Nair, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Ayush Jain and Mr. Tushar
Thakur, Advocates for R -2.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has bee n done by video conferencing.
2. The Petitioner is a pilot working in Indigo Airlines (hereinafter ,
“Airlines ”). The Petitioner , after being employed by the Airlines submitted
his Airport Entry Permit (hereinafter , “AEP” ) form to the concerned
department on 30th September, 201 9. At that time, according to the
Petitioner, there was no case or complaint pending against him. It is the
contention of the Petitioner that o n 4th October, 2019, a complaint was
registered against him by his cousin sister in Orissa with whom there were
property disputes. The police had summoned him and he had answered all
the questions of the police, however , he was not provided with a copy of the
complaint , the FIR or any other particulars. He was therefore under the
impression that no criminal case had been registered against him.
3. Thereafter, on 29th November, 2019, the Petitioner received summons
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 2 of 9
seeking his personal appearance in Court on 20th December, 2019. Even
with the summons, no charge sheet or FIR was enclosed . The Petitioner then
applied for interim bail and was granted interim bail on 14th January, 2020 .
Immediately thereafter , i.e., on 18th February, 2020 the Petitioner informed
the Airlines of the complaint filed against him in the AEP form. Thereafter,
the Petit ioner was admitted to regular bail on 27th February, 2020. It was
only in March, 2020 that the charge sheet was supplied to him.
4. After obtaining the charge sheet and the bail order, the Petitioner
supplied the same to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Sec urity ( hereinafter
“BCAS ”). Further information sought by the BCAS was also supplied by
the Petitioner . On 12th June, 2020 , the Petitioner received a show cause
notice from the BCAS alleging that there was a delay in the Petitioner
providing the informati on relating to the FIR. The Human Resource
(hereinafter, “ HR”) department of the Airlines also issued a warning letter
to the Petitioner for the delay in informing the Airlines of the FIR . On 22nd
June, 2020, the Petitioner submitted a representation in re spect of the said
warning letter. However, vide order dated 30th July, 2020 , the entry of the
Petitioner in the Airport was banned as the AEP was withdrawn. The
Petitioner then filed various representations for which he did not receive any
positive re sponse. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the BCAS’ order withdraw ing the AEP issued to the Petitioner.
5. Mr. Mah indru, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner did not have any information at the ini tial stage, either of the
FIR or the complaint made by his cousin. He only received a copy of the
complaint after bail was granted to him and immediately thereafter , on 18th
February, 2020, he disclosed the pendency of the case against him. Ld.
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 3 of 9
counsel further submits that the `Airport Entry Permit (AEP) Guidelines,
2019 for entry into airports/civil enclaves in India (hereinafter, “AEP
Guidelines ”)’ which are relied upon by the R espondents were never
intimated to the Petitioner and were neither circulated. The Petitioner
cannot, therefore, be said to have delay ed in supplying the information to
BCAS.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Anjana Gosain, ld. CGSC appearing on behalf
of the Union of India /BCAS , submits that these guidelines have been
circulated to the e mployees throug h their employers, in this case, Indigo
Airlines. As per these guidelines, the employee has to inform the employer
as early as possible. Ld. counsel submits that in view of the fact that the
complaint was filed sometime in October, 2019, the submission of the
details of the complaint to the Airlines only in February, 2020 would be
violative of the guidelines and hence , the impugned order is completely
justified.
7. Insofar as the Airlines is concerned, ld. counsel for the Airlines
supports the stand of the BCAS that the FIR was lodged on 4th October,
2019 and there was a delay by the Petitioner in inform ing the Airlines .
8. This Court has considered the matter and also the objections raised by
the Respondents. A perusal of the AEP Guideline s shows that the same was
introduced in 2019 by the Ministry of Civil Aviation with the intention of
regulating entry into airports and to prevent unauthorised entry. The 2019
guidelines were preceded by the guidelines of 1992, 1996 and 2014. The
AEP Guid elines of 2019 define the Aerodrome Entry Permit as under:

2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 4 of 9
“5.1 “Aerodrome Entry Permit” means the photo
identity card, smart card or temporary permit
issued by the Director General (DG), Bureau of
Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation or any
perso n authorised by the Central Government for
entry into the aerodrome or part of an aerodrome.
If used in conjunction with an automated access
control system, permits may be equipped with
electronic or other machine -readable codes to
allow entry. The perio d of validity of an AEP will
be from minimum 31 days to maximum 02 years.
Any such AEP having a validity of up to 30 days
will be classified as TAEP. ”

9. As per clause 8, the employees of various organizations who are
deployed at the airport are issued AEPs to enable them to access different
areas of the airport for performing their legitimate functions for the duration
of their functional requireme nt. Apart from employees, other persons may
also be required by the airport for functional purpose s. One of the pre –
requisite s for issuance of the AEP is security clearance or approval by
security of the programme of the sponsoring company. In case of pilots, the
airlines, which forward the applications to the B CAS, have to certify that the
employees meet the c onditions of eligibility. There appears to be a
contra diction in the definition of the AEP as per clause 5.1 and clause 8.2.1.
The f ormer stipulates the validity of the AEP for a maximum of two years
whereas clause 8.2.1 stipulates a maximum of 3 years. Either way, t he
Airlines through the ir authori sed signatory submit the application of bona
fide employees for issuance of AEP under clause 8.3.3.1. The application is
then f orwarded by the D GCA to BCAS. The AEP is issued after a police
background check. Ho wever, there is also an option of c onducting the
police background check within a maximum period of 30 days after issuance
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 5 of 9
of the AEP. Under clause 10.3, any change in the status of the employee is
to be notified by the airlines. Clause 10.3 reads as unde r:
“10.3 Notification of status ch ange :
Entities shall notify the concerned RD,
BCAS in writing when there is a change to any
details, such as;

Entity details : Logo Change, Name change,
Address, Status, Contracts and Access
requirements.
Employee deta ils: Name change, Address, Job
Title, Criminal Record or Criminal Record and
Access requirements. ”

10. Under clauses 10.4 and 10.5, the BCAS has the power to withdraw
the AEP or de -activ ate it. The said clauses read as under :
“10.4 Withdrawal of A EP/TAEP:
The BCAS reserves the righ t to withdraw
AEP/TAEP after approval from DG, BCAS under
the following conditions.
i. If issuing authority is no longer satisfied
that the holder is a suitable person to hold
an AEP.
ii. If issuing authority is no longer sati sfied
that the sponsoring entity by whom the
AEP holder is employed is reliable and
reputable.
iii. If issuing authority is no longer satisfied
that the holder has reason to hold an
AEP, due to the AEP holder not having an
operational requirement to gain acces s to
the SRA for the preceding 60 d ays.
iv. An AEP application has been given
without proper care in any particular
case.
v. The Entity does not maintain or enforce
provision for disciplinary action against
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 6 of 9
its employees.
vi. The Entity has not exercised due care i n
ensuring that persons employed by or
visiting the entity who are holders of
TAEP are escorted by holders of AEP.

10. 5 Deactivation of AEP:
i. All entities are to ensure that they have a
system in place to notify the concerned
RD, BCAS for the temporary
deac tivation of an AEP. For example ;
employees who are due to take maternity
leave, on long term sick leave or
temporary lay -offs.
ii. To reactivate an AEP Authorised
signatures are required to notify the
concerned RD, BCAS in writing along
with any supporting doc uments. The
individual will need t o attend the
concerned RD, BCAS with their identity
documents to have the AEP reissued.
iii. In some instances a new background
check will need to be carried out in case
the deactivation period exceeds one year.
Prescribed f ee to reissue the AEP will be
charg ed to the entity. ”

11. The procedure to do the background check is contained in clause 11 ,
where there is responsibility placed on the employer to ensure that adequate
pre-employment checks are conducted. Clause 11.1 & 11.6 read as under:
“11.1 Each ent ity at an airport shall vouch for the
valid requirement for each AEP/TAEP prior to its
issuance to their employee. It is the employer’s
responsibility to complete adequate pre –
employment checks or other inquiries to ensu re
that the individual concerned do es not pose a
potential threat to the airport. AEPs shall not be
issued without such undertaking. Authorised
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 7 of 9
Signatories shall submit the application with
documents directly to BCAS with a digital copy to
the Airport Oper ator. They shall verify these
docum ents as mentioned at the aforementioned
paras of Acceptance and Verification.

…

11.6 Background checks will be conducted at all
the places of the applicant’s residence in the
previous one year and of his criminal histo ry, if
any.
11.12 If a person is found involved in any crime or
misuse of the AEP, it shall be the responsibility of
the Sponsoring Agency to communicate the same
to the issuing authority immediately for
cancellatio n of his/her Aerodrome E ntry Permit.”

12. Thus, the e ntire purpose of background checks and details of
providing any criminal case is to ensure that the person does not pose a
potential threat to the airport. The intention is to ensure that if there is any
criminal case against any of the em ployees, who ha ve the AEP, the
information is immediately conveyed to the BCAS through the employer .
13. The facts in the present case show that the Petitioner had filed his
application for the AEP on 30th September, 2019 . Though he was called by
the pol ice officials o n 4th October, 2019, a copy of the FIR was received by
him for the first time on 14th January, 2020. It was only at the time of getting
bail that he is stated to have obtained a copy of the FIR lodged against him.
There after he also been supplied the charge sheet . The submiss ion of the
Petitioner is that when he was called by the police for questioning in
October, 2019, he was not aware if a case was even registered against him.
14. The Petitioner claims he w as not aware of the AEP guideline s. The
question as to whether the AEP G uidelines were circulated or not would be a
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 8 of 9
question of fa ct, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. As per the
case of the Petitioner , at least between October, 2019 to Janua ry, 2020, he
was not informed of the FIR. On 30th September, 2019 , the da y when the
Petitioner filled the AEP form, there was no F IR which was lodged against
him. Thus , the information given by the Petitioner in the AEP form cannot
be faulted with. The onl y fault on the part of the Petiti oner is that he did not
inform the authorities immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the
compla int in respect of which he sought interim bail. It is not disputed that
the Petitioner informed the authority and Indigo Airli nes on 18th February,
2020. This court is of the opinion that the word `immediately ’ ought to be
seen i n the context of each case. The petitioner herein has ob tained the copy
of the FIR in January 2020 and informed the authorities in a month’s time.
Under su ch circumstances, the entire ca reer of the Petitione r cannot be put
into jeopardy.
15. Copy of the AEP G uidelines have now been supplied to the Petitioner
through ld. Counsel. In view of t he facts and circumstances of the case, it is
directed that the AEP would be re -issued to the Petitioner , subject to the
following conditions:
a) The Petitioner shall provide information to the BCAS and Indigo
Airlines by the 15th of every alternate month about the status of the
complaint case which is pending against him. Along with the said
informatio n, he would also supply any Court order which may be
passed.
b) Respondent No.1 shall transmit a copy of the AEP Guidelines to
the sponsoring entities, contractors and employees and a lso upload
the same within two weeks on its w ebsite , so that the existence o f
2021:DHC:235
W.P.(C) 10851/2 020 Page 9 of 9
these G uidelines is disseminated to all concerned stakeholders.
16. The AEP of the Petitioner shall be issued within one week from
today. On behalf of the Indigo Airlin es, it is submitted that immediately
upon the AEP bei ng issued to the Petitioner, he would be permitted to join
duty.
17. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending
applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANU ARY 21, 2021/ dk/T
(corrected and released on 25th January , 2021 )
2021:DHC:235