SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 13.10.1999 (Annexure P-13) vide which the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 11(1) of the Passports Act, 1967, praying for restoration of passport facilities and travel documents to them.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1, Sukhdev Singh, is a retired Kanungo, aged about 67 years. Petitioner No. 2, Sukhminder Kaur, is aged 60 years and is real sister of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3, Pinderpal kaur is wife of Malwinder Singh who is son of petitioner No. 1. All three of them applied to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, for issuance of passports. Petitioner No. 1 received letter dated 2.8.1996 from the Regional Passport Officer stating that he was sympathiser to terrorists during the days of militancy and since the local police has reported against him, he was asked to clarify his stand in this regard. Petitioner No. 1 submitted his reply through his counsel that he is a retired Kanungo from the Revenue Department and none of his family members was sympathiser of terrorists. He stated that his two sons are journalists and they used to write against the State repression and police atrocities which was the main cause of enmity of local police. A similar letter dated 23.8.1996 was received by petitioner No. 2 in which she was informed that she was indulging in anti-national activities. She was asked to explain her position accordingly. In her reply submitted through counsel, petitioner No. 2 submitted that she has no criminal background and report of the police is false and baseless. Likewise, petitioner No. 3 also received letter dated 23.8.1996 alleging anti-national activities against her. To the said letter, she filed reply refuting the allegations. She submitted that her husband was involved in two false cases which related to publishing of certain articles against the State police. She stated that as far as she is concerned, she is not involved in any criminal case. Regional Passport Officer despite having received clarification/explanation from the petitioners, did not issue them the passports. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1061 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court on 12.2.1998 directing the petitioners to file an appeal against order dated 6.1.1998 passed by the Regional Passport Officer during the pendency of writ petition. Petitioners challenged order dated 6.1.1998 before the Chief Passport Officer at New Delhi. In their appeal, they specifically mentioned that there was no criminal case pending against them and the police reports were biased as the two sons of petitioner No. 1, being journalists, had been writing against the police atrocities. According to the petitioners, appellate Authority did not try to find out the basis of the police reports and rejected their appeal vide order dated 13.10.1999. The relevant part of the order of Chief Passport Officer reads as under :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.