Pinky Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 1 November, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pinky Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 1 November, 2012

Bench: Mahesh Grover

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                               CWP No.8888 of 2012
                               Date of Decision: 01.11.2012


Pinky Kumar
                                                     ....petitioner

                                          Versus

Union of India and anr.

                                                     .....respondents

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:       Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate
               for the petitioner

               Ms.J.K.Gurna, Advocate
               for the respondents

             ****
MAHESH GROVER J.(ORAL)

The only reason for declining the passport to the petitioner is that the respondents questioned the validity of the adoption as not being permissible under Section 11(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The aforesaid reasons are unsustainable in view of the Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in Pawan Deep Singh vs. Union of India and another 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 459, by holding that Section 6 of the Passport Act does not visualise any such contingency for declining the passport and that passport can be declined to an applicant only in terms of Section 6 of the Act, even if it is legally accepted that the stand of the respondents regarding the validity of the adoption is correct.

For the purposes of references, Section 6 of the Act is reproduced as under:

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.- (1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting CWP No.8888 of 2012 -2- any foreign country under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub Section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-

(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to be detrimental to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;

(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under Clause (c) of Sub-

section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely;-

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to CWP No.8888 of 2012 -3- have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal Court of India;

(g) that a warrant of summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India to the applicant has been made by any such Court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest."

Consequently, the writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to issue the passport to the petitioner, forthwith.

Before parting with the order, the Court clearly deprecates the stand of the respondents which is not based upon the law as interpreted by this Court despite the fact that the judgement of the Full Court has been appended to the petition implying thereby that there was a notice as far as position of law is concerned. This resulted in wastage of time of Court apart from forcing the petitioner into unwanted litigation. The petition is therefore accepted with costs of ` 5000/-, which shall be paid to the petitioner.

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE 01.11.2012 neenu

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court