MOHD AKBAR KICHLOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached the Court seeking the quashment of reference No. 402/1907/2000 dated 26/04/2002 whereby the passport facility has been declined to the petitioner by the Passport Officer, Jammu, respondent No. 3 and also quashment of order No. VIII/402/App -109/02 dated 15/07/2002 in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner for restoration of passport facility by respondent No. 2, by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari; with a further direction to respondents 1 to 3 to issue passport in favour of the petitioner by a writ in the nature of mandamus, in invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that he is an Advocate practising at District Courts, Doda, for the last 30 years. The petitioner further stated to have been issued Indian Passport bearing No.464744 dated 30/01/1982. On the expiry of the aforesaid passport, the petitioner applied for fresh passport, which facility was provided to him that remained valid upto 09/02/1993. According to the petitioner, he applied for the grant of passport facility by making an application on 29/03/2000 after completing all the requisite formalities. The application is also stated to have been accompanied by the previous passport, the validity of which was upto 09/02/1993. The delay in issuance of passport prompted the petitioner to issue notice to respondent No.3 on 19/03/2001 requesting the restoration of the passport facility. The petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 vide communication No.402/1907/2000 dated 23/03/2001 that the police verification was awaited. When the passport was not issued to the petitioner despite repeated requests, writ petition (OWP NO: -48/2002) came to be filed seeking a direction for issuance of passport to the petitioner by the respondents. The writ petition was, however, disposed of by the Court vide its judgment and order date 14/03/2002 with the observation that the prayer of the petitioner be considered in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & another reported as AIR 1978 SC 597 and in case the prayer of the petitioner is to be rejected then a speaking order would be passed. It was further observed that this exercise would be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date copy of the order is made available by the petitioner to the respondents.

(3.) THE Passport Officer, respondent No.3, vide its order dated 26/04/2002, however, declined to grant the passport facility to the petitioner on the basis of adverse report received from the Police Authority depicting that the petitioner has been pursuing activities which are prejudicial to the integrity of the country and all along been indulging in negative activities, in exercise of powers under section 5(2)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967. This order was appealed against by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, respondent No.2, for restoration of passport facility under section 11 of the Passport, Act, 1967. The appeal, however, stood dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15/07/2002 and upheld the decision of the Passport Officer, Jammu, denying the passport facility to the petitioner.