Sukhwinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 11 August, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhwinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 11 August, 2011

Bench: K. Kannan

CWP No. 3433 of 2011                                    1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

                                     CWP No. 3433 of 2011
                                     Date of decision August 11, 2011

Sukhwinder Singh



                                                        .......   Petitioner
                                Versus

Union of India and others


                                                        ........Respondents

CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN


Present:-         Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
                  for the petitioner.

                  Mr. L. S. Virk, DAG., Punjab.


                         ****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The petitioner's grievance for non-issuance of passport is that for an alleged involvement in a criminal case, the passport officer has not so far favourably considered the request for issue of a passport. The complaint which is said to be pending is in respect of an episode of riot that caused desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib and hurting the religious sentiments and for other major offences like attempt to commit murder. It appears that petitioner was not named in the FIR which was lodged on 25.11.2002 and the Police presented a report of the cancellation of the complaint. The Magistrate did not accept the same and appears to have ordered a fresh investigation in the year 2006. The CWP No. 3433 of 2011 2 investigation has not progressed further to any result. As of now, there is no case which is in progress before any criminal court.

2. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is no criminal case pending as contemplated under Section 6 and he cannot take any permission before the Criminal Court. The State has merely given information of the investigation and that cannot justify the Passport Officer to refuse the passport.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India states that the State has not forwarded any objection or given any favourable report for issuance of a passport. A right to passport involves a freedom of movement which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and it cannot be denied unless there are sufficient grounds to refuse the same. For the act of the year 2002, where the petitioner's involvement is still not fully established and when there is no progress in the criminal investigation, the State is bound to report the exact position and if there is no criminal offence in which the petitioner is currently involved, it shall make appropriate recommendation for the same to the Passport Officer within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On receipt of such report of the State, the Passport officer shall take a decision in a further period of 15 days and pass appropriate orders regarding issuance of passport.

4. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 11 , 2011 archana

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court