MANJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANJIT Singh, resident of village Simbli, District Hoshiarpur, submitted an application to the Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar for issuance of a fresh passport on September 03, 2001. The petitioner has submitted the application complete in all respects and annexed the requisite documents. On March 08, 2002 as the petitioner had not received his passport he approached the office of respondent No. 2 wherein he was informed that the report of the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police on account of police verification had not been received. Vide letter dated November 05, 2002 the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 2 that he should appear before the said authority with Ration Card, School Certificate, Birth Certificate, Electoral Card with copy thereof, any time between 10 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. on any working day. In furtherance of that letter the petitioner claims that he went to the office of respondent No. 2 on November 21, 2002 till today neither the passport has been issued to him nor any order has been passed rejecting his request for issuance of passport. Thus compelling him to approach this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SEPARATE written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively have been filed in Court. According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it is not disputed that application of the petitioner was received by them on September 03, 2001 on which police verification was called for as the said authority was not having any agency to verify the antecedents as well as the character of the person applying for passport. The Senior Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated October 14, 2002 had informed the authorities that there was a case registered against the petitioner under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act vide FIR No. 28 dated April 28, 1997 in which he had been convicted to undergo sentence of six months imprisonment and pay Rs. 2000/- as fine. The police authorities had recommended that the passport be not issued to the petitioner. Abiding by this report the passport authorities did not issue passport to the petitioner and the request for issuance thereof has been kept pending.

(3.) ACCORDING to respondent No. 2 the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport has been kept pending on the basis of the report "police verification report" sent by respondent to respondent No. 2 dated October 14, 2002. This report is factually incorrect. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and his subordinate authorities had acted in a mechanical manner and did not care to verify the records. In terms of the reply filed before us now it is the case of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Hoshiarpur that the petitioner was released on probation for a period of one year. The said period of one year has already expired. Bond would automatically come to an end as neither any complaint was ever received against the petitioner nor was he found guilty of any criminal offence. We fail to understand when this fact was available on the record of respondent No. 3, why factually incorrect report was submitted to respondent No. 2.