Court upholds revocation of GSM approval due to security clearance issues. Lack of clearance deemed valid reason.

The appeal was dismissed as the Court upheld the revocation of approval for GSM based Cellular Telephone Services due to lack of security clearance. The Single Judge deemed the decision to revoke security clearance as satisfactory, citing the need to protect confidential sources of information. The Court affirmed that lack of security clearance was a valid reason for revocation and rejected the appellants' plea for disclosure of information. The Court found no evidence of mala fides or victimization in the decision-making process and denied the appellants' request for further inquiry based on additional documents.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging revocation of approval for GSM based Cellular Telephone Services due to lack of security clearance.

Summary:
1. The appellants appealed against the dismissal of their writ petition challenging the revocation of approval for GSM based Cellular Telephone Services due to lack of security clearance. Original files were produced for perusal, and additional documents were filed by the appellants.

2. The writ petition challenged the FIPB's revocation of approval for GSM services due to lack of security clearance. Relief was sought for reconsideration of the security clearance refusal.

3. The Single Judge provided a detailed judgment on the facts of the case.

4. The Single Judge found the decision to revoke security clearance based on secret sources to be satisfactory and not subject to interference. The Judge also rejected the appellants' plea for disclosure of information, citing the need to protect the sources of information.

5. The Single Judge held that lack of security clearance was a valid reason for revocation of FIPB approval. The decision-making process for foreign investments involves confidential information, and unless mala fide intent is proven, the decision stands.

6. The Court affirmed the Single Judge's findings, stating that no mala fides or victimization were evident in the decision-making process. The expertise of government agencies in security matters was acknowledged, and judicial interference was deemed inappropriate.

7. The Court found the appellants' arguments regarding developments since 2005 and structural changes to be irrelevant to the revocation decision.

8. The appellants' request for further inquiry based on additional documents was denied, as the existing intelligence inputs were deemed sufficient by the Court.

9. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

---