ALAM KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a resident of Pithorai, Police Station Khuhari, District Jaisalmer has preferred this writ petition seeking direction against the second respondent to issue passport in his name. The brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner submitted an application on 18.11.2008 in the office of second respondent for issuance of passport. The application was allotted file No. A067201 and Key No. 6506420108. Before submission of the application form, the Verification Certificate was issued by the Station House Officer, Police Station Khuhari on 05.11.2008 with the remark that the petitioner is bearing good moral character and reputation. It is further clarified in the Verification Certificate that the petitioner has not incurred any disqualification for issuance of passport in terms of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act of 1967'). The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that after submission of the requisite application and the Verification Certificate, no further action was taken by the second respondent. When the application submitted by the petitioner in year 2008 was not processed, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel on 23.01.2012 requesting the second respondent to issue passport within a fortnight. The petitioner claimed passport in his name for undertaking pilgrimage in the form of Haj Yatra, for which passport was necessary. It is, inter alia, averred in the writ petition that the second respondent is under obligation to issue passport by adhering the procedure laid down under Sec. 5(2) of the Act of 1967 and if there is any impediment in doing so, it can very well resort to sub -Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act of 1967 for rejection of application. Attributing inordinate delay on the part of the second respondent, the petitioner has categorized their action as arbitrary and unreasonable and dehors the provisions of the Act of 1967.

(2.) AFTER issuance of show -cause notice, the respondent has submitted its reply. In the form of preliminary objections, the respondent has averred that the petitioner is guilty of concealing material fact, and therefore, he is liable to be non -suited solely on account of his conduct. Alleging that there is no question of invasion of any of the legal rights much less fundamental rights of the petitioner the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. A specific objection was raised in the return that the passport has not been issued to the petitioner due to negative Police Verification Report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer. The petitioner's credentials were also questioned by the second respondent by stating in the reply that on earlier occasions, he applied for passport in the years 1992, 1997 and 2000 respectively and in every application, he has changed his date of birth with intent to mislead the Passport Authorities. The inconsistency in the date of birth was highlighted with full emphasis. The requisite negative Police Verification Reports received by the respondent were also placed on record. Taking a jibe at the conduct of the petitioner for concealing material information about the previous applications for issuance of passport in 1992, 1997 and 2000, the respondent has prayed for rejection of the petition for concealment of material informations. While referring to the communication dt. 12.05.2010 from Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, the respondent has averred in the return that the Superintendent of Police has opined that the petitioner was previously involved in smuggling activities and also convicted for the offence under Excise Act, therefore, it is not desirable to issue passport to him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the basis of reply and other materials available on record, there is no legal impediment for issuance of passport to the petitioner in terms of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act of 1967. With this submission, the learned counsel has urged that the action of the second respondent in not processing the application of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel has also taken shelter of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by submitting that the action of the respondent is in gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court on 07.02.2014 in SBCW No. 210/2012 -Haji Menu vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court has held as under: -