FRANCIS Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 as illegal and amounts to refusing to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on the second respondent by the Passports Act 1967. On 07.02.2012 the respondent issued to petitioner Passport No. J 9459742. On 24.04.2018, on the request of petitioner, by accepting a few changes desired by the petitioner, the second respondent issued passport No.S 2021470. On 08.05.2018, second respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to give explanation on the alleged suppression of information, i.e., pendency of Crime No.154 of 2018 against the petitioner. According to petitioner, on 10.05.2018 he has come to know of the pendency of Crime No.154 of 2018 against him with the service of summons on the petitioner. Second respondent vide orders in Exts.P6 and P7 imposed fine and also impounded passport no.S 2021470. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.23439 of 2019 and this Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2019 disposed of the writ petition and the operative portion reads:

(2.) The petitioner filed Ext.P9 reply before the second

(3.) The main ground of challenge against Ext.P10 is that it is a non-speaking order and all the objections taken by the petitioner against show cause notice (Ext.P3) are not, firstly, considered and consequently, the observations recorded by second respondent do not reflect proper appreciation of the subtle objection the petitioner has brought to the notice of second respondent. According to petitioner imposition of fine, impounding of passport etc do have serious consequences and the second respondent, therefore, should apply the circumstances presented of the case and take a decision as warranted in this behalf. The petitioner prays for setting aside Ext.P10 and directing second respondent to re-consider Exts.P3 and P9.