BALWINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was holder of Passport No. Q-27936 which was to expire on 8.9.2003. The petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a new passport on 19.8.2002 during the currency of that passport.The petitioner was granted one month's Tourist Visa for U.K. till 19.9.2002. He went to U.K. and returned from there before the expiry of the period specified in the Visa. On 4.12.2002, FIR No. 273 was registered against the petitioner and 13 other persons, under Sections 447, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Tanda, on the complaint of one Sh. Kartar Singh. The police investigated the matter and filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Illaqa Magistrate on 15.4,2003. In the challan filed, the name of the petitioner was shown in column No. 2.

(2.) The application submitted by the petitioner for renewal/issuance of the passport was marked by the Regional Passport Officer for enquiry to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. In the report submitted, reference of the case was given, However, no specific police report was submitted in regard to the petitioner by the police authorities to the Passport authorities respondent no.\1.Vide letter dated 11.3.2004 respondent no. I required the petitioner to submit certain documents including ration card etc. as well as Court documents, within 15 days of the issuance of the said letter. On the basis of the report filed in the Court by the police 13 of the accused other than the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. No. 31737-M of 2003, where notice of motion was issued and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. The passport authorities have not passed any order declining the issuance of the passport and have not even issued the passport to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondents is entirely unjustified, arbitrary and beyond the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. Aggrieved from this action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In reply filed by the respondents, the facts as pleaded by the petitioner are hardly in dispute, the respondents mainly contended that respondent No. 2 and 3 have not rec- ommended the case of the petitioner despite the fact that a specific report was asked for them. It is not denied in the written statement that no passport has either been renewed or fresh passport issued to the petitioner so far.However, while relying upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Dwarka Singh Chhabria v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1997 Bombay 181 it is contended that the renewal of the passport is possible only if the petitioner takes leave/permission from the concerned criminal Court for travelling outside India.