Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 20 April, 2012
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
CWP No.8837 of 2011 (O & M) ::1::
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.8837 of 2011 (O & M)
Date of Decision: April 20, 2012
Sukhwinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Kewal Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate,
for respondents No.1-Union of India.
Mr.B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent No.3.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner had applied for passport with respondent No.2 for which File No.A-62621/99 dated 31.12.1999 had been created by the said respondent.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is CWP No.8837 of 2011 (O & M) ::2::
that despite such a long period having elapsed, the respondents have failed to issue passport to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Suresh Nanda versus C.B.I., AIR 2008 SC 1214 pleaded that the inaction on the part of the passport officer was unjustified.
4. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents, reply has been filed. The Assistant Passport Officer, R.P.O., Chandigarh in his reply has stated that no final report has been received from the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab. Further, as per Annexure P-5, the details of 21 FIRs registered against the petitioner has been received. In the absence of receipt of final report, the passport could not be issued to the petitioner. It has been urged that the petitioner is required to furnish the certificate with regard to the status whether any appeal has been filed against those cases or not.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that as per Annexure P-5, 21 FIRs had been lodged against the petitioner in which it has been claimed that he was discharged or acquitted but no material has been produced to substantiate the same and whether any appeals had been filed against those orders. The petitioner is, thus, required to satisfy the authorities by producing cogent material and/or certificate issued by the police authorities.
6. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Nanda (Supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, in that case the impounding of the passport was in issue and in the light of the facts CWP No.8837 of 2011 (O & M) ::3::
as noticed hereinabove, the same has no applicability to the case in hand.
7. In such a situation, the writ petition is disposed of by allowing the petitioner to furnish the requisite details to the passport authorities and in case, such details are furnished, the concerned authorities shall take a decision thereon expeditiously.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
April 20, 2012 JUDGE
sukhpreet