Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 further submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to BVR,J blow hot and cold; that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 18.11.2020 in the present writ petition, the Central Government has given information that the petitioner still holds German Passport which is valid (renewed in 2013) until 2023. It is further contended that in the new passport issued to the petitioner on 26.02.2013, the expiry date is shown as 25.02.2023 and in Column No.10, his nationality was shown as "German." It is submitted, assuming that the competent authority has not specifically pointed out all these shortcomings, this Court can certainly look into subsequent events in public interest and also in view of the interim order of this Court dated 18.11.2020. In response to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent events cannot be taken into consideration in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill's case, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Prasad Singh v. Sharad Yadav 2.

22.2. In Sharad Yadav's case (Supra 2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"15. An event or conduct of a person even though subsequent to passing of an order of the Speaker or Chairman ordinarily may not be relevant for determining the validity of the order of the Speaker or Chairman but in a case where subsequent event or conduct of the Member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining to the time when the Member has incurred disqualification, that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) speaking for this Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. [Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1625] has made a very pertinent observation with regard to acceptance of evidence. It observed that if the Court requires an evidence that can always be received. In para 19, following was laid down : (AIR p. 1632) BVR,J "19. ... All procedure is always open to a Court which is not expressly prohibited and no rule of this Court has laid down that evidence shall not be received, if the Court requires it."

16. The observations made by the High Court [Sharad Yadav v. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13352] in para 4 i.e. "[a]ny event subsequent to the passing of the said order cannot be a consideration for this Court to test the legality of the said order" may be generally correct but there can be exception if the above statement is treated as statement of law.

17. In a writ petition under Article 226 subsequent events can be taken note of for varied purposes. We are reminded of the weighty observation of V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders [Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770] , where following was observed : (SCC pp. 772-73, para

24. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Shri Caetano R. Silva v. Prescribed Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi 4 contending that there is no public interest involved in a dispute regarding issuance of passport and thus the decisions in K. Shyam Kumar's case (Supra 3) and Sharad Yadav's case (Surpa 2) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. That the lis is between the State and the citizen and third party has no locus to interfere and agitate the same as there is no public interest involved.