Kerala High Court
Om Sharavana Bhava Dharma Trust vs The Passport Officer on 1 August, 2011
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20137 of 2011(N)
1. OM SHARAVANA BHAVA DHARMA TRUST,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent :SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/08/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 20137 OF 2011
=====================
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5, a notice issued to one Muraleekrishnan Pulikkal calling upon him to explain the circumstances under which he obtained the passport suppressing the pendency of a criminal case at the time when application for passport was made. He was also asked to surrender the passport immediately.
2. Petitioner is the Chairman of Om Sharavana Bhava Dharma Trust, Sreekrishnapuram, Palakkad District. The aforesaid Muraleekrishnan @ Sadguru Muralikrishna Swamiji is the Chief Patron of the Trust. According to the petitioner, at the time when the application was made, the applicant did not know about the pendency of the case, and that the applicant is now aboard. It is stated that, it was while so that Ext.P5 was issued and that if any action in pursuance thereof is taken, that will create serious prejudice to the holder of the passport. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed.
3. On behalf of the respondent, statement has been filed WPC No. 20137/11 :2 : by the counsel. In the statement, it is stated that when application for re-issue of passport was made, on the basis of post-police verification, passport was issued to the applicant on 31/3/2011. According to the respondent, subsequently they received police verification report from the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad stating that issue of passport is not recommended since the applicant is accused in Crime No.70/11 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station and that the same is under investigation. Proceeding further, in paras 4 and 5 of the statement, it has been stated thus:-
4. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 4.7.2011 was issued to him for suppression of the factum of the criminal case in the passport application. He is yet to respond to this notice. The petitioner Trust has however in the letter dated 12.7.2011 informed that the passport holder is abroad and requested to keep in abeyance the process of impounding till he returns.
5. It is humbly submitted that since the police report does not contain details of the criminal case pending before a Court of law, the respondent has not proceeded further under Sec.10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967.
4. Thus, as of now, respondent himself is not satisfied with the contents of the report nor is he proposing to take action WPC No. 20137/11 :3 : on the basis of the police verification report. If that were the case, I wonder why a show cause notice was issued on the basis of an unsatisfactory report.
5. Be that as it may, now that according to the respondent, they have sought further details from the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad, it is clarified that, on receipt of further details, if the respondent is satisfied that this is a case worth further action under the Passports Act, it will be open to the respondent to take appropriate action in the matter. However, since the holder of the passport Sri.Muraleekrishnan Pulikkal is now abroad on a religious trip, and as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said passport holder is returning to the country on 2nd of October, 2011, it is directed that, such action shall be initiated only after 2/10/2011, so that no prejudice will be caused to him during his trip.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp