Madras High Court
C.Stephen vs The Regional Passport Officer on 7 September, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD).No.14378 of 2015 C.Stephen . . Petitioner versus 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ulla Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai 625 02. 2.The Passport Officer, Passport Sava Kendra: Tirunelveli City, No.13, South Bye Pass Road, Xavier Colony, Tirunelveli City -627 005. . . Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed in Policy ref. No.1500028 _ CPU _ MDU file no.MD2067870639314, dated 01.07.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue passport in the file No.MD2067870639314 to the petitioner. !For Petitioner :Mr.C.Bharathi ^For respondents :Mr.K.R.Laxman Central Government Standing Counsel :ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed in Policy ref. No.1500028_CPU_MDU file no.MD2067870639314, dated 01.07.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue passport in the file No.MD2067870639314 to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Sooraikattuvilai, Arunmanai Post, Kanyakumari District. He applied for a fresh passport in Application Reference No.14-1005685995 on 03.07.2014 enclosing the entire details. Appointment was given to the petitioner by the respondent on 11.08.2014 at 02.45 p.m. On 11.08.2014 the petitioner appeared before the second respondent at the prescribed time and produced all the documents in respect of file number MD2067870639314. The petitioner's application was scrutinized and the status was given ?subject to police verification?. But, no such verification was conducted by the police namely, Arunmanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Hence, the petitioner waited for some time and thereafter, approached the second respondent and requested to complete the process and issue passport. But, the second respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner's application for passport was forwarded to the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.10.2014 to the petitioner stating that the police had issued an adverse negative report against the petitioner. From the said report it was found that criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and the same is still under trial in the Court of law. But, this fact was suppressed by the petitioner in the application. Hence, the respondent called for an explanation. On 14.11.2014, the petitioner approached the first respondent and attended the enquiry and submitted his explanation. In the explanation the petitioner has clearly explained that the entire report of the police authority is false, except a pending criminal case in Crime No.638 of 2011 on the file of the Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District for an offence under Section 4(A) 1 Tamil Nadu Open Places Prevention and Disfigurement Act, 1957, Amendment Act 1997 punishable for a maximum period of one year or fine and also informed that no warrant is pending against the petitioner. The cases in Crime No.204/14, 205/14 on the file of the Arumanai Police Station were already closed as 'mistake of fact' on 11.05.2014 itself. Even after the said explanation, the petitioner has not issued the passport. Hence the petitioner herein, filed W.P.(MD).No.8940 of 2015 before this Court for a direction to the first respondent to consider his application for passport dated 11.08.2014 and the representation dated 17.02.2015 and 30.04.2015. On 04.06.2015, this Court has directed the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the representations dated 17.02.2015 and 30.04.2015 on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter enclosing a copy of the order of this Court to the respondents requesting them to issue a passport. But, the first respondent without disclosing any of the factual aspects of the case, passed the impugned order mechanically on 01.07.2015 stating that the petitioner's application would be processed as per passport rules. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. Respondents have filed a counter and submitted that the petitioner was born on 19.06.1972 at Arumanai, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner applied for passport vide file No.MD2067870639314 dated 11.08.2014 and was granted passport at passport Seva Kendra, Tirunelveli on pre-police verification basis and the case was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari under Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 for verification of character and antecedents on 11.08.2014. An adverse police verification report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, on 25.09.2014 stating that the petitioner is involved in Arunmanai Police Station Cr.No.204/14 and 205/14 both are registered u/s.147, 148, 427, 447, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and both the cases were subsequently referred as 'mistake of fact'. Apart from the above two cases, another case in Crime No.638 of 2011 is pending against the petitioner under Section 4(A) 1 Tamil Nadu Open Place Prevention and Disfigurement Act, 1957 and 1997 (P.T.). Hence, grant of passport was not recommended.
4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in W.P(MD).No.8343 to 8350 of 2014, dated 27.06.2015, submitted that until the charge-sheet has been filed, a Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. Judicial Act commences only when the charge-sheet is in order and the Magistrate proceeds further under Chapter XVI. Only in the event of filing charge-sheet, respondent can deny the issuance of passport to the petitioner. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the two criminal cases in Cr.No.204/14 and 205/14 have already been closed as 'mistake of fact'. In Cr.No.638/11, charge-sheet has not been filed so far.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner produced detail with regard to the case in Cr.No.638/2011, the respondents would consider the issuance of passport to the petitioner, if his application is otherwise in order.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner is directed to produce all the relevant particulars with regard to Crime No.638 of 2011 to enable R.SUBBIAH,J.
jikr the respondents to verify the same. In the event it is found that no charge sheet is filed in the above said crime number, the respondents are directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the petitioner submits the relevant records with regard to Cr.No.638/11.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
To
1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ulla Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai 625 02.
2.The Passport Officer, Passport Sava Kendra: Tirunelveli City, No.13, South Bye Pass Road, Xavier Colony, Tirunelveli City -627 005..