(1.) The petitioner is a citizen of India. He is of Kerala origin. He is a Catholic Missionary, who claims that he is running religious charitable institutions consistent with his priesthood. In this O.P. the challenge is against Ext. P5-order, passed by the Central Government, dated 15-1-1988. The said order (Ext. P5) was passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.5(2)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 (in short, the Act) read with S.6(2)(i) and S.8 of the Act. It is stated that since the order is passed by the Central Government, no appeal shall lie against Ext. P5.
(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioner Mr. C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, as also Senior Counsel for the Central Government Mr. P. V. Madhavan Nambiar. The sole question argued before me was that Ext. P5 was passed arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was stated that the respondent did not act fairly in passing-Ext. P5-order, without hearing the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the Central Government Mr. Nambiar contended that the statute does not contemplate any hearing to the petitioner before passing Ext. P5 and so, the petitioner cannot insist that he should have been heard before passing Ext. P5. Mr. Nambiar further contended that the policy implicit in the provisions of the Act shows that no hearing is contemplated in refusing to grant passport facilities to a person.
(3.) It is common ground that the petitioner was issued a passport by the Regional Transport Officer, Cochin, on 3-12-1976. It was endorsed in 1981. 10 years have elapsed after the issue of the passport. So the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules requested for the issue of a passport. It was rejected by Ext. P5. The Government refused passport facilities to the petitioner in public interest. It is common ground that the petitioner was not heard before Ext. P5 was passed. The sole question is whether the petitioner should have been heard before rendering Ext. P5.