Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Daler Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 October, 2015

Wassan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 January, 2023

Mr. Bikramjit Singh Baath, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that the present petition, which is a second round of litigation, the action of the respondent-Passport Authorities was not only arbitrary but also unfair since the reasons mentioned in the impugned order are contrary to the settled law and the statutory provisions. He submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that reference has been made to two FIRs i.e. FIR No.151 of 2015, under Sections 124-A, 153-B, 115,117, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Police Station Chatiwind, District Amritsar and FIR No.139 of 2015, under Sections 341, 117, 147, 151, 120-B IPC and Section 8-B of National Highway Act, 1956. He submitted that in both the FIRs even challan was not presented by the police against the petitioner and they were at the stage of investigation only and therefore, a mere pendency of the FIRs cannot create any embargo upon the petitioner for getting the passport. He referred to two judgments of this Court in Daler Singh Vs. Union of India and others [2015(8) RCR 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2023 15:15:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:013535 CWP-5164-2018 (O&M) -5- (Civil) 618 ]and Sahib Jaskaran Singh Versus Union of India and others [CWP No.19551 of 2015] to contend that mere pendency of FIRs do not come within the scope of Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. By way of impugned order, the Passport Authorities have not granted passport to the petitioner in view of Section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act which pertain only to the proceedings in respect of which an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India and since no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, non- issuance of passport to the petitioner was contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967, besides also being contrary to the aforesaid two judgments passed by this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

Rudrapratapsinh Hemantkumar Patel ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 January, 2024

[7.2] Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the (i) oral dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Punjab & Haryana Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 18 20:41:07 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10357/2023 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024 undefined High Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. Union of India and Others rendered in CWP No.19331 of 2022; (ii) decision dated 29.10.2021 of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Ankurbhai Shapurji vs. State of Gujarat & 2 Others rendered in Special Criminal Application No.9799/2021; (iii) order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Daler Singh vs. Union of India and Others rendered in CWP No.12143 of 2015 and (iv) order dated 03.02.2023 passed by Kerala High Court in the case of Akshay Kiran @ Arjun vs. State of Kerala rendered in Crl. M. C. No.662 of 2023 would not be of any assistance to the petitioner as the facts in the said cases were different from the facts of the case on hand as in the present case, the petitioner is already in Canada and in the present case, presence of petitioner - accused is required to be secured by the Investigating Officer and hence, arguments canvassed by the learned APP deserves consideration. The respondent shall have liberty to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of accused as the accused remained absconding.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harpreet Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 8 February, 2023

In the event of filing of such an application, the Passport Authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgments of this Court in Daler Singh Vs. Union of India and others Sahib Jaskaran Singh Versus Union of India and others (Supra). In case any further information is required by the Passport Authorities, then the petitioner shall be informed regarding the same by way of written communication.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

Baltej Singh And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 22 March, 2023

3. After processing the same, in case the petitioners are found to the entitled for the grant of passports especially in the light of the aforesaid two judgments passed by this Court in Daler Singh Vs. Union of India and other s(Supra)and Sahib Jaskaran Singh Versus Union of India and others (Supra), then the petitioners shall be issued passports within a period of three months thereafter.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

Naresh vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 April, 2026

"A perusal of section 6 of the Passports Act would show that mere pendency of an FIR itself is no ground for refusal or non- issuance of passport to the applicant. This Court had also occasioned to deal with an identical issue in the case of Daler Singh v. Union of India and others(Supra) and Sahib Jaskaran Singh v. Union of India and others(Supra). So far as allegation of suppression of facts pertaining to FIRs at the time of application filed by the petitioner is concerned, Section 6 does not lay down any ground that on the basis of suppression of pendency of an FIR, a passport can be refused.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next