SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Simranjit Singh Mann, who has recently been elected as Member of Parliament from Sangrur Parliamentary Constituency with a margin of more than 87,000 votes, applied to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh (for short the RPO hereinafter) in the year 1990 for issuance of a Passport. For three years, the application for grant of passport was not decided and that led to the filing of Civil writ petition No. 14143 of 1993 in this court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the RPO to decide the application for issuance of passport. This Court directed the RPO to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of passport. In pursuance of order passed by this Court, RPO vide order dated 25.8.1993 informed the petitioner that it has been decided to refuse passport facility to him under section 6(2) (b) and (c) read with Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner was also informed that in case he so wished, he may file appeal against the order with the Joint Secretary (CFV) & Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CPO) within 30 days from the date of receipt of letter by him.

(2.) Petitioner filed appeal against order dated 25.8.1993 with the CPO but he refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the order impugned gives no ground of rejection and the petitioner was asked to seek grounds of rejection from the RPO. Petitioner asked for grounds of rejection from the RPO who in turn informed him that the order of rejection for issuance of passport facilities has been passed by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, and the matter in question has been referred to the Ministry. Petitioner was told that he shall be informed on the subject as and when something is heard from the headquarter. Therefore nothing was heard and that" led to filing of another Civil Writ Petition No. 15490 of 1995 by the petitioner in which he made a prayer that the RPO may be directed to supply him grounds of rejection. Upon notice of the writ petition, counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India stated that there are no other grounds of rejection except those supplied in order dated 25.8.1993. Because of the statement made by counsel for Union of India, Division Bench of this Court, on November 14, 1995 directed the Appellate Authority to treat order dated 25.8.1993 to be the impugned order and not insist on any other further reasons for rejecting the application for grant of passport. It was also directed that the appeal be decided within three months. In pursuance of order dated 14.11.1995 of Division Bench of this Court, petitioner filed another appeal before the CPO which was dismissed vide order dated 29.2.1996. Petitioner challenged the order passed in appeal in this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 4491 of 1996 and one of his grievances was that the CPO dismissed his appeal without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. This Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the CPO and directed that the appeal of the petitioner be decided after giving him an opportunity of hearing.

(3.) Pursuant to order passed in CWP No. 4491 of 1996, petitioner appeared through his counsel before the CPO and vide order dated 23.6.1998, the CPO upheld order dated 25.8.1993 passed by the RPO refusing passport facility to the petitioner under Section 6(2) (b) and (c) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. The main ground which seems to have prevailed with the CPO to reject the appeal was that six cases were pending against the petitioner. Details of six cases given therein are as follows :-