Allahabad High Court
Udai Nath Singh @ Chulbul Singh vs Union Of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 27 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Kant
Bench: Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi
1
Court No. 1
Writ Petition No. 6513 (MB) of 2010
Udai Nath Singh alias Chulbul Singh
Vs.
Union of India and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
The petitioner, who had been Member of Legislative Council belonging to Bhartiya Janta Party, for two successive terms, namely, 1998- 04 and 2004-10, has approached this Court saying that he has been illegally refused the issuance of passport, which is urgently required for his treatment at Parkway Hospital, Singapore. The petitioner who is suffering from serious ailments, namely, dilated cardiomyopathy (collapse of heart), severe LV dysfunction (heart's left ventricle failure) and chronic renal failure (kidney failure), has been advised by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for his treatment at the aforesaid hospital in Singapore.
The petitioner applied for issuance of passport on 29.1.2010 before the Passport Officer, Passport Office, Lucknow but the same has been refused on the ground that there is a police report which says that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner in the districts of Varanasi and Chandauli. The aforesaid police report further says that the petitioner had been a Member of Legislative Council of Bhartiya Janta Party and that he being a political person, his file is maintained in L.I.U. Office. Further, the report says that he wants to go abroad for medical treatment.
The aforesaid police report though does not mention about any specific criminal case being registered and pending against the petitioner but the petitioner says that this was a case under Sections 302/120-B IPC. This was a criminal case bearing Session Trial No. 800 of 1997: State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Kabadi and others.
He further says that the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid trial vide judgement and order dated 2.7.2001.
Submission of the counsel for the petitioner Sri Anupam Mehrotra is that based on such an incorrect police report, which mentions a case which no more survives and rather, in which the petitioner has been acquitted, the Passport Officer has rejected the request for issuance of passport.
Sri Anupam Mehrotra, however, has very fairly stated and 2 mentioned in the writ petition also that there are three more criminal cases, which are pending against the petitioner, namely, (i) Case Crime No. 77/2000: State v. Udai Nath Singh u/s 25 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the Court of VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Varanasi. This case was lodged on an F.I.R. dated 10.6.2000 and the chargesheet dated 20.7.2000 has been filed therein. The petitioner was granted bail in this case vide order dated 13.6.2000, which is operative till date; (ii) Case Crime No. 95/2000: State v. Udai Nath Singh u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC, P.S. Jansa, District Varanasi. This case was lodged on an F.I.R. dated 20.7.2000 and the chargesheet dated 24.6.2001 has been filed therein, pursuant to which the petitioner has not been served any summons till date; and (iii) Case Crime No. 123/1996: State v. Tej Bahadur Nath Singh and others u/s 186/143/341/224/225/504/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jansa, District Varanasi, which is pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. This case was lodged on an F.I.R. dated 16.8.96 and chargesheet dated 8.3.1999 has been filed therein. The petitioner was granted bail in this case vide order dated 3.9.96, which is operative till date.
His submission is that the aforesaid cases are pending right from the year 1996 or 2000 in which the petitioner has been granted bail and there is no restriction on his movement even outside the country and, therefore, on this ground, passport cannot be refused.
Sri I.H. Faruqui appearing for the respondents, submits that the police report aforesaid does not mention about any specific case but it does say that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner in districts of Varanasi and Chandauli. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in Para 15 of the writ petition that the cases, referred to above, are also pending in district Varanasi and submitted that the petitioner's contention that police report speaks of a case under Section 302 IPC, in which the petitioner stands acquitted is not correct.
He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the prescribed proforma on which application for passport is to be given and was given by the petitioner, in which column no. 17 sub-clause (b) reads as under:
"(b). Are any criminal proceedings pending against you before a court in India? If so, give name of court, case number and relevant sections of Law."3
The petitioner in his application form though has marked 'yes' against column 17 sub-clause (b) but in column (c) he has written 'no'. The requirement under the said column (c) was to provide a 'no objection certificate' from the court concerned for issuance of passport. This was one of the essential conditions, while making an application for issuance of passport, to a person against whom criminal cases are pending but the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did not make any effort to get 'no objection certificate' from the concerned court and in the application form he mentioned 'no'.
Sri Anupam Mehrotra has placed reliance upon the case of K.S. Abdulla v. Asstt. Director of Enforcement, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 253, wherein the apex court had allowed the person to go abroad on certain conditions being imposed.
Prayer is, that this Court may also issue directions likewise and the petitioner undertakes to comply with the direction, which are issued.
In the case of K.S. Abdulla (supra) passport was refused not on the ground that the application form was not properly filled in or the requirement prescribed in the form was not fulfilled.
Here, in the instant case, the petitioner did not abide by the requirement, which was necessarily to be complied with, for making an application for issuance of passport, in view of the prescribed proforma, where the details of criminal cases pending in the court and the 'no objection' from such court was required to be furnished.
Had it been a case where even after furnishing of 'no objection certificate' from the court concerned, the passport had been refused, there could have been a cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court, seeking a direction for issuance of the passport looking to the serious ailments of the petitioner, on such terms and conditions, as may be necessary, so as to ensure his return to the country after medical treatment.
In the present case, since the application form itself was not properly filled in and no plausible explanation could be put forward by the petitioner before this Court, as to why the conditions mention in the application form have not complied with, before making the application, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Passport Officer, refusing the grant of passport.
We, however, looking to the advice of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, 4 New Delhi and also taking into consideration that he is suffering from serious ailments and is required to get medical treatment at a particular hospital at Singapore, direct that the petitioner may approach the concerned courts, where the criminal cases are pending for having 'no objection' for issuance of the passport and if such applications are moved, we do not find any reason to believe that the same shall not be considered and disposed of forthwith, in accordance with rules and as per the discretion of the courts concerned.
In our opinion, one week's time would be sufficient for taking decision on such applications, from the date they are moved.
It would be open for the petitioner thereafter, to apply for issuance of the passport in the prescribed proforma. It is also open for the petitioner to provide the 'no objection certificates', if given by the courts concerned to the Passport Officer, in addition to the form already furnished by him and if such 'no objection certificates' are given, the Passport Officer shall reconsider the matter of issuance of passport in accordance with rules, ignoring the previous order, by means of which he has refused to issue the passport.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of finally.
Dated: 27.7.2010 MFA