High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-29Petition disposed with limited relief allowing ...

CAPT. PEDRO GUILHERME DA VEIGA PEREIRA E OLIVEIRA v Union of India, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, InterGlobe Aviation Limited

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.12911/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-09-29
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed in the following terms: (1) The petitioner is free to visit India for a period of one week to take his belongings from the apartment in Kochi, after reserving flight tickets, and he shall inform the 6th respondent and the FRRO about his arrival and departure dates. (2) All other contentions raised in the petition are left open and the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate authorities with representations for pursuing those matters in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed with limited relief allowing a one-week visit to India for the petitioner to collect belongings, with directions to inform FRRO and 6th respondent; other reliefs kept open for later consideration; petitioner may pursue representations to the appropriate authority.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

CAPT. PEDRO GUILHERME DA VEIGA PEREIRA E OLIVEIRA
CAE Simulation Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Respondents

Union of India
Directorate General of Civil Aviation
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner
InterGlobe Aviation Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv AYSHA ABRAHAM
• Adv YASHWANTH SHENOY
• Adv Dayasindhu Shreehari N.S.
• Adv CGC Mathew A Kuzhaladan
• Adv Aditya Venugopalan KuriaKose
• Adv Varghese V. Shyamohan
• Adv Anusha M. Khan
• Adv Sudeep Aravind Panicker

Counsels for Respondents

• Sr. Adv. Arun Kumar (for R6)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition in the Kerala High Court concerns Captain Pedro Guilherme da Veiga Pereira e Oliveira (a Portuguese national) and related parties seeking relief from government authorities in connection with his entry into India for a short period to complete documentation before relocation. The petitioner sought mandamus to allow entry for 90 days to facilitate documentation and relocation. Additional prayers aimed at restraining the issuance of Foreign Aircraft Transfer Authorisations (FATA) and security clearances to others not under the operator’s control, and to direct the DGCA and Bureau of Civil Aviation Security to conduct an inquiry into alleged violations of the regulatory framework by officers involved in FATA and security clearance, as well as to initiate appropriate proceedings including criminal prosecution under labour statutes. During arguments, counsel for the petitioner briefed that the relief should be limited to a short sojourn to collect belongings from Kochi and that other legal contentions could be pursued later before appropriate authorities. The 1st respondent and the 6th respondent indicated a pragmatic approach allowing a limited visit if the petitioner's stay is restricted to one week, subject to furnishing details to FRRO and the 6th respondent. The High Court disposed the matter by recording these submissions, permitting a one-week visit, and keeping other contentions open for future consideration, with directions to file representations for the necessary actions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing entry into India for 90 days to complete documentation and relocate. He also sought to restrain the issuance of FATA and security clearances to persons not under the operator's direct control, and to compel an inquiry into alleged violations of regulatory Regulations by officers responsible for FATA and security clearance, including criminal prosecution for labour statute violations. In light of counsel's submissions, the petitioner constrained his prayer to a short visit solely to collect belongings from Kochi, with intent to pursue other legal contentions later through proper authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents indicated a pragmatic approach. The 1st respondent (Union of India) and the 6th respondent stated they would not oppose a limited one-week visit if the petitioner remained in India only for that period and informed the FRRO. The ASGI supported this scope, provided the petitioner adheres to the one-week limit and coordinates with FRRO and the 6th respondent. The court accepted these submissions and disposed the matter accordingly, keeping other contentions open for consideration through proper legal channels.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CAPT. PEDRO GUILHERME DA VEIGA PEREIRA E OLIVEIRA v Union of India, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, InterGlobe Aviation Limited and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12911 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** ||CAPT. PEDRO GUILHERME DA VEIGA PEREIRA E OLIVEIRA| |---|---| ||ARTILHEIRO, AGED 47 YEARS| ||RUA DOS MORANGOS, NO.129, 2890-555 ALCOCHETE,| ||PORTUGAL, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY| ||HOLDER DR. JAIN GEORGE P, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.| ||P.Y.GEORGE, RESIDING AT P2C HEERA VASTUGRAMAM,| ||RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682039, KERALA.| ||BY ADV AYSHA ABRAHAM| ||ADV.YASHWANTH SHENOY| |**RESPONDENTS:**|| |1|UNION OF INDIA| ||THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL| ||AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILLS, NEW DELHI-| ||110001.| |2|DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION,| ||THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, OPP. SAFDARJUNG| ||AIRPORT, AURBINDO MARG, NEW DELHI-110003.| |3|BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY,| ||THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, A WING, I-III FLOOR,| ||JANPATH BHAWAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001.| |4|DY. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER,| ||KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OOLIMUGHAL, KAKANAD,| ||ERNAKULAM-682030.| |5|INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED,| ||THROUGH ITS CEO & WHOLETIME DIRECTOR, MR. RONOJOY| ||DUTTA, CENTRAL WING, GROUND FLOOR, THAPAR HOUSE| ||124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001.| **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** 6 CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MR. VIKAS KHURMA, SURVEY NO.26 & 27, 3RD FLOOR, BANDARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, UGANAVADI POST, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-562110. BY ADVS.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., CGC MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN ADITYA VENUGOPALAN KURIAKOSE VARGHESE V.SHYAMOHAN ANUSHMA M.KHAN SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.ADV.SRI.ARUN KUMAR FOR R6 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.12911 of 2021** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** ## This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to allow the entry of the Petitioner into India for a period of 90 days to ensure completion of his documentation and relocation back to his home country. ii. iii. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to restrain the Respondent No.2 from issuing FATA to any other persons other than employees or persons directly under the control and supervision of the operator. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to restrain the Respondent No.3 from issuing 'security clearance' to any other persons other than employees or persons directly under the control and supervision of the operator. iv. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Director General of the Respondent No.2 and 3 to conduct **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** an inquiry into the involvement of officers responsible for issue of FATA and security clearance in violation of the Regulations to the Petitioner as well as other Pilots operating for all Air Operators. v. To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondent No.4 to conduct an inquiry and initiate appropriate proceedings including criminal prosecution for violation of labour statutes. vi. Pass such other further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. When the matter came up for consideration today, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is limiting prayer to visit India for a short period to take his belongings from an apartment at Kochi and he may be allowed to raise all other legal contentions before the appropriate authorities in accordance to law. 3. When this submission was made, I requested the ASGI and the counsel for the 6[th] respondent about their opinion. The Senior Counsel who appeared for the 6[th] respondent submitted that if the intention of the petitioner is only to collect his belongings from the apartment and to take **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** it back to his native place, the 6[th] respondent will not stand in the way. He can use his employment visa itself for that purpose alone. The ASGI submitted that if the 6[th] respondent agrees for the same, the 1[st] respondent will not stand in the way on condition that the petitioner will be here in India, only for one week and the purpose is only to take his belongings from the apartment in Kochi and he will leave the country within one week. 4. In the light of these submissions, I think this writ petition can be disposed recording the submission of respondents 1 and 6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner: 1. The petitioner is free to visit India for a period of one week to take his belongings from the apartment situated at Kochi. After reserving the flight tickets, the petitioner shall inform the 6[th] respondent and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) about the date of his arrival and departure. 2. All other contentions raised in this writ **6** ## **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** petition are left open and the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate authorities in accordance to law. The petitioner is free to submit appropriate representation for that purpose before the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority will do the needful in accordance to law. JV Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12911/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT| ||EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND| ||SIGMA AVIATION SERVICES LTD. DATED| ||26.9.2016.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT| ||CONTRACT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE| ||PETITIONER AND AIRLINE ALLIED SERVICES| ||LIMITED DATED 12.4.2017.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT VISA| ||STAMPED ON THE PASSPORT OF THE| ||PETITIONER SHOWING ALLIANCE AIR, NEW| ||DELHI AS THE EMPLOYER AND HAVING THE| ||VALIDITY FROM 21.4.2017 TO 20.4.2018.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PLACE| ||BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN JUNE AND| ||NOVEMBER OF 2017.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT| ||EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND| ||CAE PARC AVIATION SERVICES LTD. DATED| ||16.3.2018.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT| ||EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND| ||THE RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED 13.4.2018.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY CAE TO| ||THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.2020 &| ||16.12.2020.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL FROM THE| ||PETITIONER TO CAE ALONG WITH THE VISA| ||FEE RECEIPT DATED 22.12.2020.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT VISA| ||STAMPED ON THE PASSPORT OF THE| ||PETITIONER SHOWING RESPONDENT NO.6 AS| ||THE EMPLOYER AND HAVING THE VALIDITY| ||FROM 22.12.2020 TO 21.12.2021.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY CAE| ||ALONG WITH THE TERMINATION LETTER| ||ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED| ||24.12.2020.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE CREW SCHEDULE REPORT| ||OF THE PETITIONER FROM 16.12.2020 TO| ||15.1.2021.| **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.12911/2021** Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT OFFERED BY CAE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.2.2021. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY CAE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.3.2021. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 DATED 16.4.2021. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.5.2021. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.5.2021. Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 DATED 31.5.2020. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE ADVOCATE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 31.5.2020.