HAJI MENU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Haji Menu, resident of Jaisalmer, has preferred this writ petition seeking directions against the respondents for issuance of passport without any further delay.

(2.) The apposite facts for the purpose of this writ petition are that the petitioner applied for issuance of passport under the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, 'Act of 1967') and the requisite application form No.186362 was submitted on 5th May 2006. Acknowledging the receipt of the form of the petitioner, respondent No.2 assigned the same, File Reference No. A046267-2006 dated 7th of June 2006. On receipt of the application form of the petitioner, the second respondent made endeavor for verifying character and other antecedents of the petitioner in accordance with law and requisite information in this behalf was divulged to respondent No.3 & 4 respectively. The petitioner has categorically averred in the petition that in normal course application for issuance of passport is processed and finalized within six months but in his case when nothing was heard for more than a year, he sought requisite information from the website of the passport authority on 3rd of April 2007. As per information available on website, the status of the application of the petitioner was shown with the remark that police report is awaited. Immediately thereupon, as per the version of the petitioner, he submitted a representation on 3rd of April 2007. The petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 16th of February 2006 showing the report submitted by the third respondent regarding character verification for issuance of passport, which was addressed to the fourth respondent. In the report, it is indicated that in all nine cases have been registered against the petitioner from 1980 to 1995 with a clear stipulation that since last ten years the petitioner is not involved in any case. It is also clarified in the report that old cases have already been decided and no case is pending. In adherence of the report dated 16th February 2006 vide Annex. 'G' dated 20th February 2006, the fourth respondent issued a character certificate with the remark that petitioner has good moral character and reputation and provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act of 1987 are not attracted in his case. In his concluding remark, the fourth respondent has further made recommendation for issuance of passport to the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, despite receipt of the requisite character verification from respondents No.3 & 4, no steps were taken by the second respondent for issuance of passport to him. The petitioner being aggrieved from the inaction on the part of the second respondent approached this Court by way of preferring a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5961/2011. The said writ petition was rejected by the Court on the technical ground that before invoking jurisdiction of the Court the petitioner has not served a notice for demand of justice or representation to the concerned authorities. While deciding the writ petition by order dated 13th of July 2011, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again if after decision of the representation of the petitioner any grievance survives. As per petitioner, after passing of the order by this Court on 13th of July 2011 a representation was submitted by him on 27th of July 2011 which was duly served on the second respondent but nothing turned out on the said representation. Ventilating his grievances against the total apathy of the respondents, the petitioner has averred in the petition that after waiting for three months when his representation was not acknowledged in spite of completing all formalities he was left with no option but to approach this Court by way of this petition. In support of his prayer, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that in terms of Section 6(2) of the Act of 1967 there is no impediment in issuance of passport to him. While referring to Section 5(2) of the Act of 1967, the petitioner has further submitted that if the authority was not satisfied it was well within its right to refuse his request to issue the passport under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act of 1967. According to the petitioner, the competent authority has not adhered to the said procedure by passing any order. For his afflictions, the petitioner has also taken shelter of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) At the threshold, when the matter came up before this Court on 2nd of February 2012, the Court was pleased to pass following order: