9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r police station in this regard. The first information report bearing No. 632102 dated 11-3-2002 was registered with the said police station. Thereafter the petitioner applied for fresh passport giving complete details of previous passport issued to him. 4. Respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that they had received information from external affair ministry that his previous passport was deliberately lost so that someone else can unauthorisedly take benefit or use the said passport. The said passport of the petitioner was thus withheld nearly for a period of 2 years. The petitioner aggrieved by this action raised protest by writing letters and by making representations to the authorities. The said passport was again returned to him in August, 2006 with endorsement on 18-3-2005. Again on 29-12-2005 the petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 3 asking him to supply the copy of FIR lodged by him at the police station, which the petitioner supplied to them without any delay. Copy of the said letter annexed to the petition as Exhibit C. The status report in furtherance to the FIR was also submitted by the petitioner on 1-5-2006 as given by the concerned police station wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmended that the passport be not issued to the petitioner and if the passport was released there is likelihood of the petitioner avoiding the process of law. It is admitted that in the application filed for issuance of fresh passport on 29th April, 2003 the petitioner had mentioned about the petitioner's loss of earlier passport. 8. No doubt a discretion is vested with the passport authority in terms of section 10 to impound and/or return of passport or travel documents of a person. It could also ask the holder of the passport to deliver the passport and travel documents after serving upon him a notice as required under the provisions of section 10(1) of the Act. The power of cancelling and impounding of the passport are also vested, if the holder of the passport was covered under the provisions of section 10(3) of the Act. It is significant to note at this stage that the power vested in the passport authority under section 10(1) of the Act, has to be exercised while keeping the due regard to the provisions of section 6(1) of the Act. In terms of section 6(1) above, the government could refuse to make endorsement for visit by a person to foreign country or issue travel docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which may or is likely to operate prejudicial to the interests of any person must be supported by legislative authority. In the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 the Court held that a person cannot be deprived of his right to go abroad. There was a specific law enacted by the State in that regard. This being the settled law, obvious result is that the competent authority must have material to substantiate this objection on the basis of the record maintained by it in support of the objection for Issuance of the passport. Further more, the Parliament having enacted a law specifying the grounds on the basis of which the authorities have wide power for refusing to issue a passport or travel document of the one hand and even right has been given to the said authorities to impound or caused to be impound or revoke the passport or travel document. But, once the grounds have been specified, then the authorities are obliged to bring their case within those grounds and cannot be permitted to add any ground to the specified ground or to forward an interpretation which, in substance, would tantamount to introduce a new ground which apparently is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mechanically reject request for issuance of passport. To illustrate this view we may refer to a case where a person may be involved in a minor offence of traffic regulations and claims to be tried in the Court rather than paying fine at the spot. A case against him being registered under section 11 read with section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and even section 323 of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter and challan presented in Court, should such person be denied issuance of a passport merely because there is a case pending against him in the Criminal Court, will be a matter of serious concern for the passport authorities. In such cases, it will be expected of the passport authorities to consider the application for renewal/issuance of a passport objectively and in consultation with the police authorities so as to prevent injustice being done to an applicant. Default in such objectivity is in all probabilities likely to result in Infringement of a fundamental protection and liberty granted to the applicant under the law of the land. The purpose for which the petitioner had prayed for Issuance of the passport has lost its significance as the event at Bangkok itself is over. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are prejudicial to the sovereignty of the country, there must be some reasonable and cogent material in possession of the respondents to show involvement of the petitioners in such activities. The expression, likely to cannot be treated so lightly as to include every activity and relationship to be prejudicial to the sovereignty of the State. 10. Likelihood may take in its scope the apprehension which essentially must be record based or founded on a reasonable cause, of course, may not be directly substantiated by written documentation. Surveillance, maintenance of appropriate registers under the Police Rules, entry of the name of the person therein and at least some reasonable analytical examination by the concerned quarters in the Union of India would normally be the records which should substantiate such reasonable apprehension . 10. Very relevant observations were also made by the same Court in the case of Ranjit Bajaj v. Regional Passport Authority, Chandigarh, Civil Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2004. While emphasising the need for drawing balance between the restricted freedom and nature of the offence, alleged to have been committed by the authority while consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction . 11. The above enunciated principle clearly show that there has to be fairness in the action of the Passport authority and the orders denying the passport have to be for just, proper reasons and such reasons essentially should fall within the ambit and scope of the corresponding provisions of the Act. The case of the respondents as aforementioned indicates that the petitioner could not be returned the passport as his previous passport was misutilised by one Yashwant Natwar Patel, against whom a case was pending. Further he had made misrepresentation in his application that the case had been closed. Both these grounds are not supported by the documents produced before the Court by respondent No. 6. Exhibit E to the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, is a letter written to the Ministry External Affairs by the Dy. Commissioner of Police IGI Airport, New Delhi, wherein he referred to the provisions of section 6(2) indicating that the proceedings in respect of offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India, and therefore, the passport facility may not be granted. In the same lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
