LAWS(DLH)-2002-3-30

NAND SINGH Vs. SECRETARY UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 21, 2002
NAND SINGH Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issue of direction to the respondents to release passport No.G-222571 to the petitioner after its renewal.

(2.) .Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was granted a passport bearing No. G-22257 1/10/1989 by respondent no.3. the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi which was valid upto 04.10.1994. Subsequently, it was renewed for validity upto 04.10.1999. In the meantime the petitioner had been to different foreign countries such as UK. USA. Canada. Singapore. Thailand and Malaysia on that passport. On 07.12.1999 the petitioner submitted the passport for further renewal. He deposited the requisite renewal fee of Rs.600.00 with respondent no.3 against receipt. The petitioner was asked to collect the passport after 15-20 days. The petitioner went to the office of respondent no.3 on 28.01.2000 for this purpose. He was told that the passport had been sent for renewal to respondent no.2, the Chief Passport Officer and was asked to come again in the first week of March, 2000. On 06.3.2000 he was asked to come in May. 2000 for collecting the passport. On 12.5.2000. however, respondent no.3 informed that his passport had been withheld by respondent no.2 because a criminal case was pending against him in a court at Nahan. Himachal Pradesh. On 14.7.2000 the petitioner met the concerned officer in the office of the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi and told him that no court had passed order detaining his passport; during the past over 11 years he had been earning his livelihood by going to the foreign countries and singing bhajans and kirtans and he had never misused the passport; he was on bail in the said criminal case in which he was falsely implicated and in case he Jumped the bail. the court would take legal action against him and for this reason the Passport Office had no right to detain his passport and lastly; he would not leave the country without the prior permission of the court where the criminal case was pending. But the passport was not issued. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it is illegal, arbitrary and unfair ana has infringed his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

(3.) The Regional Passport Officer filed his own affidavit refuting the claim of the petitioner that the faction of withholding of the passport was illegal or not [warranted by the provisions of Indian Passport Act. It was stated that the petitioner had not approached the respondent Regional Passport Office with clean hands. At page 3 para 16(ii) of the passport renewal application the petitioner stated that no criminal proceedings were pending against him. On verification by the police this assertion was found false. The criminal case in FIR No.2 dated 2.4.1998 under Section 363/376/366 IPC of Police Station Shillai. Himachal Pradesh was pending for trial against him. The petitioner had contravened the provisions of Sections 12(b), 5 and 7 of the Indian Passport Act and the respondent. Regional Passport Officer had ample power to refuse to issue the passport or travel document in such cases. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and instead of submitting his explanation, the petitioner rushed to the filing of the petition bearing CMM No.11/2000 before Himachal Pradesh High Court. On 04.7.2000 the counsel for petitioner did not press that petition saying that the petitioner would avail of other lawful remedy available to him. He requested for dismissing the petition as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as per remedy available to him in law. Instead of acting on this submission. The petitioner had filed the instant writ petition. The respondent has genuine apprehension that the petitioner if granted passport, was not likely to return to the country and face the trial. Thouah it was not denied that the passport application was submitted on 7.12.1999 and a fee of Rs.600.00 was deposited by the petitioner, but it was denied that the petitioner was asked to come after 15-20 days for collection of the passport. The petitioner enclosed an undated letter issued by one Mr. Harjinder Singh Atwal, General Secretary. Gurdwara Guru Nanak Dev Ji wakefield Road. Bradford in support for entry clearance to the petitioner to 90 to the United Kingdom for a period of six months. The said period is already over. There is no record to support the allegation of the petitioner that he went to the office of the respondent on 06.3.2000. But the passport of the petitioner was not ready as in the meantime respondent no.3 had received a report from the DCP, Special Branch dated 30.12.1999 disclosing the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case. On the basis of this information a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.1.2000 asking him to show cause as to why the passport should not be refused to him under Section 5(2)(c) read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act as he had not disclosed about the above mentioned criminal case pending against him. The petitioner was served with the notice but he did not file any reply within 10 days of its receipt. The proceedings, therefore, have become final and binding on the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing CMM No.11/2000 before Himachal Pradesh High Court was dismissed on 04.7.2000. Section 10 (3)(f) of the Passport Act empowers the passport authority to impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document if any of the conditions of the passport or travel documents have been contravened. The petitioner was required to fake clearance from the court where he was standing trial in a criminal case that during the pendency of the case the passport could be issued to him. The petitioner could also apply for a passport after he was acquitted in the criminal case. It was prayed that this petition should be dismissed.