Bombay High Court Upholds Western Coalfields’ Entry Ban on Ex-Employee | No Unrestricted Right for Citizens to Access Public Offices
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Division Bench of Justices Anil S. Kilor and Rajnish R. Vyas, held that citizens do not enjoy an unrestricted right to enter public offices on the pretext of submitting complaints. Upholding Western Coalfields Limited’s order declaring a former employee as persona non grata and restricting his access for three years, the Court stated that while grievances may be raised through proper channels, conduct that disturbs official work or harasses public officials cannot be tolerated. It clarified that reasonable limitations on such visits are necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of public administration.
The petitioner, a former employee of Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) and a self-described social activist, approached the Bombay High Court challenging an order issued by WCL declaring him persona non grata and prohibiting his entry into its headquarters and all related establishments for a period of three years. WCL had issued the impugned order citing that the petitioner repeatedly submitted baseless complaints against senior officials, allegedly with the intent to malign their image and disrupt office functioning. The company also stated that his visits violated visitor entry protocols, posed security concerns, and interfered with official work despite prior warnings.
The petitioner contended that the declaration was unlawful and contrary to established legal principles, arguing that as a citizen he was entitled to approach WCL offices for grievance redressal and to assist others seeking similar relief. He denied that his conduct was disruptive and asserted that the restriction infringed his rights.
In response, WCL submitted that the petitioner’s repeated and unnecessary visits hindered smooth administrative functioning and that his complaints had been investigated and found to be unfounded. It maintained that the restriction was a reasonable measure to protect workplace order and security.
The Court examined the earlier instance where a similar restriction had been imposed and later revoked on conditions of good conduct, which the petitioner subsequently breached. Referring to prior judicial observations, the Bench noted that no individual possesses a right to harass public officers or obstruct official duties. Finding no illegality in the company’s action, the Court dismissed the petition.
Justice Rajnish R. Vyas recorded that the principal issue was “whether the respondent(s) can declare the petitioner as ‘persona non grata’ and consequently, can issue the order restraining the petitioner to enter into the premises of Western Coalfields Limited Headquarters, Nagpur and in all its areas/establishments for a period of three years.”
The Court explained the principle of "persona non grata" as meaning “an unwelcome person,” stating that in non-diplomatic contexts, it signifies withdrawal of acceptance or permission for entry. The Bench noted that since the petitioner’s employment had been terminated two decades ago, “there is no employer-employee relationship,” and therefore, he could not claim “absolute access to the office.”
It was recorded that the petitioner had been previously declared “persona non grata” by WCL on 27 October 2021, and though the order was revoked on his request subject to maintaining good conduct, he subsequently breached those conditions. The Court found that his repeated misconduct and unrestrained entry into WCL offices were not bona fide.
The Bench stated that “the conduct of the petitioner and intention to visit the office of the respondents is not bona fide, and his entry in office is with a view to obstruct the smooth functioning of the office.” It added that no person has the right to harass or intimidate public officials under the guise of activism.
The Court cited the recent decision in Sagar Hanumanta Daunde and Another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3711), noting that “no individual has a fundamental right to harass the public officers performing lawful duty by repeatedly filing complaints and appeals on the same subject matter or casting personal aspersions against them when dissatisfied with their responses.” The Division Bench observed that such behaviour “hinders the smooth functioning of any public office.”
The Court further remarked that while the right to file complaints or seek information is a legitimate civic activity, “filing frivolous and repeated complaints burdens the public officers.” It added that the petitioner could pursue his grievances through lawful means, including online communication, postal correspondence, or by using information technology tools, rather than by physically visiting offices and disturbing public servants during work hours.
The Bench recorded that even fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions, noting: “The right of a citizen to move freely throughout the territory of India is also required to be considered from the angle of reasonable restrictions which are recognised by the Constitution.” The Court concluded that unregulated entry into government or public offices could not be construed as an unfettered right.
The Bench stated: “In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner and therefore petition is dismissed.”
The Bench clarified that WCL’s decision to restrict the petitioner’s entry into its premises was lawful and consistent with maintaining administrative order. The restriction, according to the judgment, did not violate any constitutional right since it constituted a reasonable limitation aimed at ensuring security and the smooth functioning of a public establishment.
The Court held that although citizens are entitled to approach public authorities for grievance redressal, such rights must be exercised within lawful and civil limits. The Bench stated that the petitioner’s conduct had demonstrated repeated disregard for earlier court directions and administrative warnings. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7 October 2024 remained valid and enforceable.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri K.J. Chakole, Petitioner-in-Person
For the Respondents: Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate; Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate
Case Title: Shri Kishor S/o Jairam Chakole v. The Western Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:10266-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1627 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas
