Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

At the outset, it may be observed that granting of passport to an individual is governed by the statutory provisions contained under the Act of 1967 and the requisite criterion and grounds for issuance and refusal of passport are to confirm the provisions contained therein. Section 5 of the Act of 1967 deals with the procedure for furnishing of the application for issuance of passport. Under sub-sec.(3) of Section 5 of the Act of 1967 the Passport Authority is empowered to pass an order for refusal to issue the passport or travel document after recording in writing a brief statement of its reasons.

Section 6 of the Act of 1967 empowers the Passport Authority to pass an order for refusal of passport/travel documents etc. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1967 envisage the contingencies for refusal of issuance of passport or travel document for visiting any country to the incumbent applicant. For ready reference, the complete text of Section 6 with emphasis on sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1967 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 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 no other ground, namely: -
[12]
(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.

(emphasis supplied) If the present case is examined threadbare in the light of materials available on record and sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1967 quoted supra, then it will ipso facto reveal that the grounds for withholding the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport or refusal to issue passport to him are not at all convincing. There is apparently no reason for the second respondent to sit tight over the matter or to decline issuance of passport to the petitioner on the strength of available materials. The so called blameworthy character and other antecedents of the petitioner are also not forthcoming from the materials which are available on record. The communications in the form of Annex.R/2/2 and R/2/3 on which the second respondent has placed heavy reliance, are not worth any sort of credence so as to make out a case within the exceptions carved out under sub-sec.(2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1967 for refusal of a passport or travel document to the petitioner for visiting any foreign country. One more significant fact is that the so called history-sheet against the petitioner has already been closed by a verdict of this Court and that has obviously vanished the said ground for being treated as an impediment for issuance of passport. From a bare perusal of Annex.R/2/2 the last conviction of the petitioner relates to the year 1996 i.e. on 9th April 1996 and since then more than one and half decades have elapsed and for last more than ten years no criminal case is pending against him. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has not incurred any disqualification for issuance of passport within the four corners of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1967.

The above referred Sections 5 & 6 of the Act of 1967 contain the complete procedure for dealing with an application for issuance of passport, travel documents etc and plausible grounds for refusal of passport, travel documents etc. Thus, the passport authority is statutorily bound to process the application for issuance of passport and thereafter to take a decision either in affirmative or in negative in the backdrop of facts of an individual case. Considering these aspects, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent, that mandamus cannot be issued, deserves judicial scrutiny.