Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Since no decision was taken as such petitioner filed a Contempt Application bearing No.684 of 2021 before this Court alleging non-compliance of order dated 31.08.2020 and it is during pendency of said Contempt Application but the impugned decision refusing passport to the petitioner was taken vide order dated 19.03.2021, which is under challenge before this Court.

5. Pleadings in present proceedings have been exchanged. The reason set-out by the respondent-authorities for refusal of passport as mentioned in the order impugned as well as in the counter affidavit is, petitioner had faced criminal trial in Case Crime No.219 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, & 376 IPC, Police Station Gagha, District Gorakhpur has been convicted.

C.SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned refusing passport is a cryptic one and has been passed for sheer annoyance of contempt proceedings initiated against authority concerned, by twisting the facts giving an impression that proceeding is pending against the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is absolutely no pendency of any criminal case, as such respondent-authority had erred in refusing the passport to the petitioner through a cryptic order without assigning any cogent reason. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain reported in (2008) 15 SCC 711 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. In absence of cogent reason and failure in considering the material in its correct perspective, the decision making process stands vitiated and interference by this Court is warranted.

16. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is, that order of refusal of passport is a result of anguish at the end of respondent for contempt proceedings drawn against them before this Court.

D. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

17. The counsel representing the Union of India-respondents endevoured hard to defend the order of refusal of passport on the strength of conviction recorded against petitioner by the Juvenile Justice Board.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India Mr. Pal submitted that the petitioner is a previous convict, as such the application for issuance of passport has rightly been turned down and the further submission is that even during pendency of criminal proceedings, the passport can be refused based on provisions as contained under Section 6 (2) (f) of Passport Act.

(emphasis added)

20. Section 6 of the Passports Act, which deals with refusal of passports and travel documents, in so far as it is material, provides:

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 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;