REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER Vs. D NAGENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Facts are not in d ispu te. Petitioner-respondent applied for a passport which was issued on 25-10-1993 being Passport No.Q-439184. It, however, transpired that before applying for the said passport, he had applied for and Passport No.N-645643 dated 22-2-1993 had already been issued to him. In the subsequent application that he had filed, he had not mentioned about his already possessing a passport. To a notice calling upon him to show-cause why the Passport No.Q-439184 issued to him on 25-10-1993 be not cancelled, he stated that due to oversight he had forgotten to mention about the earlier passport. According to his explanation he applied for the new passport after surrendering the earlier one because he believed that signature in the earlier passport was not numerically beneficial (auspicious) to him. Rejecting his application, the 1st appellant has impounded the passport. Learned single Judge has, in W.P. No.7587of 1996, taken notice of all these and also the fact that different places of birth were mentioned in the two application forms, yet held as follows:

(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that any opinion of this Court on the merits of the mistakes or defaults of the petitioner- respondent cannot be taken as a ground for setting aside an order made by a competent authority. The Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit as a Court of appeal. The scope and ambit of judicial review of any administrative or quasi-judicial order is limited. The Court is required to see whether, on the facts as above, any reasonable person could have taken the above view, whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice, whether there is any error of jurisdiction or law or whether the action of the authority concerned is actuated by malice either in law or in fact. Learned single Judge has in fact entered into the merits of the decision and formed his own opinion on the omissions or mistakes of the petitioner- respondent in applying for the second passport and decided that on such facts the competent authority should not have impounded the passport. We have good reasons to hold that the Court has entered into a forbidden area for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of a judicial review of an administrative/quasi-judicial action.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, however, we are of the opinion that if all factsare correctly disclosed and there is nothing in the conduct of the petitioner-respondent to deprive him of a passport, the petitioner- respondent can legitimately apply for a passport and the competent authority shall be obliged to consider the same in accordance with law. If a fresh application is filed on behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the competent authority may proceed to consider the same. It will be fair, however, in doing so he shall not take the past conduct of the petitioner-respondent which might, on the facts as found by the learned single Judge, be a genuine mistake.