GURPREET SINGH BAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the observation/endorsement made on page Nos. 5 and 7 of his passport and also for quashing the order dated 15.06.2006 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby his request for issuance of a fresh passport for a period of one year without making any observation/endorsement regarding the pendency of criminal case was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner was earlier facing trial in FIR No. 187 dated 24.05.2004 relating to Police Station Nakodar under Sections 447/511/34 IPC which trial was pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar. During its pendency, the petitioner applied for issuance of a passport so as to enable him to visit Canada where his wife Lakhwinder Kaur was expecting a child. When the respondents failed to issue a passport to him, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 9482 of 2005 before this Court. During the hearing of the same, a statement was made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein that in case the petitioner furnished a copy of the order of the trial Court in which the criminal proceedings were pending, permitting him to go abroad, further action would be taken for issuance of passport to him. The petitioner then moved an application before the learned trial Court for the grant of permission which was allowed on 02.08.2005. The petitioner furnished the guarantee and surety, which was accepted by the learned trial Court on 11.11.2005. Inspite of the same, respondent No. 2 failed to issue a passport to him. The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous application in his earlier writ petition. In response to the said application, a statement was made by learned counsel representing Union of India before a Division Bench of this Court on 10.01.2006 (Annexure P.7) that the petitioner shall be issued a passport to be valid for one year, within one week. When the petitioner finally received the passport (Annexure P.8), he was astonished to see that there was certain observation/endorsement made at page Nos. 5 and 7 of the same that the criminal proceedings were pending against him in the Court of law and that the passport was valid only for a period of one year. This, according to the petitioner, was done by the respondents with ulterior purpose and mala fide intention so as to cause hindrance for him to get the visa and, thus, depriving him from personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which included the right to travel abroad.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, another development has taken place. The trial of the criminal case, which was pending against the petitioner, has since been concluded by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, who vide judgment dated 01.10.2007 has acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed against him. Certified copy of the judgment has already been taken on record as Mark 'A'. In view of the said development, this Court had adjourned the matter for today so as to enable learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions for deleting the obnoxious entry from the passport of the petitioner. Today, he has apprised the Court that let the petitioner apply afresh for the grant of passport to him and the same would be granted to him without making any mention about the aforesaid obnoxious entries.