BASHEER MUKRI Vs. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the impounding of the passport and submits that, based on Ext.P3, the petitioner may be returned the passport and allowed to go abroad. Though the prayers are innocuous, the facts of the case, as revealed from the statement filed by the learned Central Government Counsel, reveals it to be otherwise.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for a re-issue of passport, which was granted under the Tatkal Scheme. Later, the police verification report received was adverse insofar as the petitioner having been involved in one crime. The petitioner was then issued with Ext.P1 notice threatening impounding of the passport.

(3.) In such circumstance, there was an impounding order passed on 08.04.2016. Later to that, the petitioner surrendered the passport, as per Ext.P2 dated 09.09.2016. It was after the surrender, that the petitioner approached the Assistant Sessions Judge, Payyannur, where the case was pending and got Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 does not reveal to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that the passport had been impounded. An application was made for permission to go abroad, which was allowed. Insofar as the petitioner's passport having been impounded, Ext.P3 is of no consequence.