Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gulmand vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 September, 2018
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11523/2017
Gulmand S/o Shri Hazi Rahim, Resident Of Village- Bharewala,
Tehsil- Pokaran, District- Jaisalmer. Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of External
Affairs, Government Of India, Janpath Road, Central
Secratariate, New Delhi.
2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, J-
14, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur-
302051
3. The Passport Officer, Passport Seva Kendra, Sun Tower,
Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent of Police, CID (CB) (Security), Lal
Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dinesh Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.B.P.Bohra.
Mr.S.K.Vyas.
Mr.Rajeev Dutta, Addl.S.P. CID (CB),
Jaisalmer.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order Date of Pronouncement : 26/09/2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri Gulmand has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent Passport Officer to issue a passport to the petitioner in furtherance of the application filed by him in the year 2013.
The petitioner claims that he has no criminal antecedents. He was earlier having a passport in the name of Gul Mohd. which has (2 of 3) [CW-11523/2017] expired, thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh application for issuance of a new passport in the year 2013 but no response was been received by the petitioner on the said application till date. The verification proceedings were got conducted from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, CID, Jaisalmer but no result was forthcoming after which, the petitioner re-applied for grant of passport in the year 2016. The said application too did not result into any conclusion whereupon, the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondents with a prayer to issue the passport forthwith. Despite that, no information was received by the petitioner whereupon, the instant writ petition came to be filed.
The respondents including the Passport Authorities have filed reply to the writ petition stating that initially the Police verification report was not received and thus, the passport could not be granted to the petitioner. Later on, the CID (CB) forwarded a Police report adverse to the petitioner, recommending non- issuance of the passport to him because he was allegedly indulged in anti-national activities and was thus, not qualified to receive the passport. The Police Authorities have filed a detailed reply to the writ petition annexing therewith, the alleged adverse reports recorded against the petitioner in the dossiers of CID intelligence. On a perusal of these reports which have been placed on record collectively as Annex.R/2, it is manifest that the allegations attributed to the petitioner in this report are absolutely flimsy and frivolous. In all these reports, all that has been alleged is that the petitioner had gone across the border to Pakistan with cows etc. and brought Ghee in return. In a report of the year 1988, it is mentioned that the petitioner is the brother of the Sarpanch of village Bharewala and that he had purchased a few goats from a (3 of 3) [CW-11523/2017] Pakistani National with the connivance and aid of the Customs Office. The goats are meant for transportation to Pakistan and that the petitioner might have received 20 tolas of gold causing loss to government revenue. The latest and the last report which is stated to be in existence against the petitioner is of the year 1997. The said report refers to an incident involving visit of Gaji Fakir to participate in a marriage at the house of one Sahabdeen at the village Bharewala. The report reads that the basic purpose of the visit of Shri Gaji Fakir was to pacify the anger prevailing amongst the various persons against the petitioner. Manifestly, these reports are of all almost 20 years or earlier. The latest report of the year 1997 does not disclose any adverse circumstance against the petitioner. In this background, this Court feels that there was no justification for the respondent CID (CB) Authorities to have given an adverse report against the petitioner to the passport authority.
Thus, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents Passport Authorities are directed to ignore the innocuous and stale adverse report of the CID (CB) and issue the new passport to the petitioner at the earliest.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J /tarun goyal/ Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)