Madras High Court
Suba. Veerapandian vs The Regional Passport Officer on 15 June, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 15-06-2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT PETITION No.26823 OF 2014 Suba. Veerapandian ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Royala Towers No.2&3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to re-issue passport to the petitioner in terms of the application made by the petitioner in File No.MA1077260133913. For petitioner : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Sunil Kumar. For respondent 1 : Mrs.S.Meenakumari, Central Govt.Standing Counsel. For respondent 2 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader. O R D E R
By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner claims that he is a retired Tamil Professor and an ardent supporter of Tamil language and people's cause and that he has written around 20 books about Tamil language and its cultural values. He would further submit that he espouses the cause of Tamils in Sri Lanka and he travelled to various countries to propogate the values of Tamil language and also participated and delivered lectures in seminars relating to Tamil language, traditions and culture. It is stated by the petitioner that he was issued with a Passport bearing No.A.1436844 on 16.07.1996, which was valid for ten years, and it was renewed by a fresh passport on 17.07.2007 in Passport No.G3384812, which is valid till 16.07.2017.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that on account of his frequent travels to various countries for the abovesaid purpose, visas were affixed in respect of each travel in the passport and, consequently, the leaflets in the passport exhausted and there is no space for affixure of visas and, as such, he is not able to undertake any travel outside India, in spite of the fact that he is having a valid passport, which is valid up to 16.07.2017.
4. In the above regard, according to the petitioner, he applied for affixing additional pages in the passport and also appeared before the authority concerned and submitted all the required documents with the original passport at Passport Seva Kendra, Saligramam, Chennai, and paid requisite fee vide receipt No.MASF13308404349, on 15.10.2013, pursuant to which, the Passport Seva Kendra, after making necessary enquiry, also issued an acknowledgement and that he was also informed that it would take 15 to 20 days for re-issuing passport, after completion of the enquiry.
5. It is also stated by the petitioner that a criminal prosecution was launched against him and four others for the alleged commission of offences under Section 2 (3) (a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and the case, after investigation, was culminated in chargesheet, which was taken on file in Special C.C.No.3 of 2003, on the file of Special Court under Prevention of Terrorism Act, Poonamallee, and, subsequently, the POTA itself got repealed in the year 2004. Thereafter, the Review Committee, constituted under the said Act, analysed the case against the petitioner and found no prima facie case made out against him and, accordingly, gave its order on 15.04.2005; in pursuance thereto, the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.425 of 2006 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2003 before the Special Court for POTA, Poonamallee, seeking permission to withdraw the case pending against him, and the said Court also permitted the prosecution to withdraw the case vide its order, dated 03.04.2007 itself.
6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the light of the said development, there cannot be any impediment for the first respondent to provide additional papers in the passport or reissue the passport and since no orders came to be passed after 15.10.2013, he lost a chance to visit Singapore and participate in the seminars conducted in the year 2014 and, therefore, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent, he has come forward to file this Writ Petition.
7. Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this Court to the passport, would contend that, admittedly, the petitioner is having a passport, which is valid up to 16.07.2017, and when, the petitioner, being a retired Tamil Professor, visited various countries and delivered lecturers and also propogated the values of Tamil language, the first respondent, without assigning any reason and not taking any action either to furnish the additional papers in the existing passport or re-issue the passport, and, accordingly, prays for appropriate orders.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order, dated 24.09.2014, made in W.P.No.33546 of 2013, reported in (2014) 7 MLJ 422, in the case of Ashok Muthana v. Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, and submitted that, in similar facts and circumstances, this Court granted the relief to the petitioner therein and he prays for appropriate orders in this case.
9. Per contra, Mrs.S.Meenakumari, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the first respondent, vehemently contends that the petitioner has supported the cause of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, which is a banned organisation, and further reports are awaited from the Research and Analysis Wing and, hence, there has been some delay in considering the request of the petitioner and prays for further time to get instructions.
10. I have also heard the submissions of Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the second respondent.
11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available before it.
12. This Writ Petition was first listed on 09.10.2014, on which date, notice of motion was ordered by this Court, returnable in one week, and private notice was also permitted. When the matter was listed on 20.01.2015, learned counsel for the first respondent prayed for time. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 20.02.2015 and, on that date also, learned counsel for the first respondent prayed for further time, and, as such, the matter was adjuorned to 20.03.2015. On 20.03.2015, the matter was once again adjourned by two weeks, at the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, for filing counter. On 15.06.2015, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made a mention to list this matter at the end of Motion List, as, according to him, some urgent orders were required and, therefore, this Court directed the matter to be listed today, under the caption "for orders".
13. The sum and substance of the submissions made by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent is that in view of the bad antecedents of the petitioner and also the pendency of necessary clearances from the authorities concerned, there is some delay in considering the request of the petitioner.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Ashok Muthana, referred to above, a similar issue was considered and the relevant portions of the said order read as under :
"22. A careful look at the facts of the case would show that the duration of the passport issued to the petitioner is up to 16.02.2015. No steps have been taken for impounding or revoking the passport under Section 10 (3). Since no step is taken for impounding or revoking the passport, the passport cannot even be suspended under Section 10-A. Therefore, if the respondent wants to deny the petitioner of the benefit of the validity of the passport up to the period stated therein, namely, 16.02.2015, the respondent can only invoke the first limb of Section 10 (1). The case of the petitioner is not referable to Section 6 (2), since the case on hand is not one for issue of passport or for reissue of passport upon the expiry of the original duration. If the petitioner wants renewal after 16.02.2015, the same may come within the purview of reissue/issue, enabling the respondents to take recourse to Section 6 (2). So long as there is no proposal for impounding or revocation, the case will also not come under Section 10 (3).
23. Therefore, I am of the view that the denial of the benefit of the period of validity already stipulated in the passport up to 16.02.2015, without taking recourse to Section 10 (1), cannot be sustained. Once the period of validity of the passport is found to be 16.02.2015, such period can be altered only by taking recourse to the power of variation under Section 10 (1). Alternatively, the first respondent has to take recourse for impounding or revocation under Section 10 (3).
25. Therefore, in view of the fact that the validity of the Passport now held by the petitioner is up to 16.02.2015, the impugned order, taking recourse to Section 6 (2) is not proper. So long as there is no proceeding either under Section 10 (1) or under Section 10 (3), the first respondent cannot deny the issue of additional book. What the petitioner now seeks is only the issue of additional book, till the period of validity of the existing passport.
26. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to issue additional book or additional sheets to the petitioner so that the validity of the passport already issued up to 16.02.2015 is not curtailed in any manner otherwise than by due process of law. No costs."
15. Undisputedly, in this case, the petitioner is having a Passport, which is valid up to 16.07.2017. A perusal of the passport issued to the petitioner would disclose that he has visited various countries. In addition, the specific stand of the petitioner is that he is a retired Tamil Professor, espousing the cause of Tamil language and its values, by delivering lectures in various countries.
16. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, coupled with the legal position, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief, as prayed for. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner vide File No.MA1077260133913 and reissue the passport to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.
Index : Yes 17-06-2015
Internet : Yes
dixit
Note to Office :
Issue Order Copy on 22-06-2015
To
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Royala Towers No.2&3, IV Floor,
Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City,
Chennai.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
dixit
W.P.Nos.26823/2014
17-06-2015