No One Can Be Given Free Hand To Visit Public Offices & Harass Public Officials: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner, claiming to be an activist and visiting various offices of Western Coalfields Ltd.
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
While upholding an order of the Western Coalfields declaring the litigant as persona non grata, the Bombay High Court has held that A person cannot, as a matter of right, claim to have authority to harass public officials. The High Court also observed that a person cannot be given free hand to visit the public offices, which would certainly affect the public administration.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioner, claiming to be an activist and visiting various offices of WCL. It was alleged that he violated the visitor’s entry protocol, besides unauthorizedly visiting officials during working hours.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajnish R. Vyas and Justice Anil S. Kilor held, “...due to breach of the conditions imposed, again the petitioner was declared as “Persona-nongrata” 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.”
“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”, it added.
The Petitioner appeared In-person while Advocate Gauri Venkatraman represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the petitioner’s case that earlier, he was working with the respondents 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 against the officials of the respondents. The respondents vide an order declared the petitioner as “persona-non-grata”, since many complaints submitted by the petitioner were verified, and it was found to be baseless.
According to the respondents, baseless complaints were written with an intention to malign the image of the top officials of the WCL. The respondents advanced a reason that the entry of the petitioner into the Public Sector Office was viewed with an intent of threat to the security of their establishment and despite repeated attempts to make the petitioner understand the gravity of the situation, it had not led to any fruitful results. The petitioner had earlier preferred the Writ Petition, and the High Court had observed that the petitioner, being out of employment, cannot, as of right, be permitted to enter the office, as the relationship between the parties appeared to be strained. It was observed that, however, if the petitioner required any assistance, he could always file an application before the Competent Forum.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that the principle of “Persona-non-grata” means “an unwelcome person.” In international relations, the 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.
Considering that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents long back in the year 2004, the Bench held that there was 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”, it added.
The Bench noted that the petitioner was writing malicious letters, levelling false allegations against the officers and management of the respondent establishment with an intention to harass and blackmail them. “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”, it stated.
The Bench thus dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Shri Kishor S/o. Jairam Chakole v. The Western Coalfields Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:10266-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Petitioner-in-Person
Respondent: Advocates Gauri Venkatraman, S.A.Chaudhari