Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.48 seconds)
Hajra Iqbal Memon vs Union Of India And Others on 13 May, 1999 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Smt. Charanjit Kaur on 20 January, 1987

The provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act which makes it manda- tory for reasons to be recorded in writing, have not been com- plied with and the impugned action cannot be sustained on this basis as well. The Order of the Appellate Authority specifies no better reasons to support the Order. The law is well settled by the judgments as cited above that the reasons have to be communi- cated to the petitioner for impounding and refusal of issuance of the passport. This has not been done in the present case. The writ petition was filed in this Court and respondents have hur- riedly issued the impugned Order which will indicate that the reasons now stated are extraneous and irrelevant. Therefore, the court in this situation has no choice but to strike down the impugned orders as the plea of the Passport Authority that it would not be in the interest of the general public to disclose the reasons, has not been substantiated by any cogent grounds. The learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to support the order on the basis of law as referred to in the judgments cited above. The reliance on the judgment as reported in Union of India & others Vs. Smt. Charanjit Kaur to reiterate that the respondents are at liberty to impound the passport of the wife of an alleged extremist leader stationed abroad is misplaced. That case was rendered on its own facts and relevant material was placed on record for taking action under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The impounding Order was issued while the wife was in this country for her alleged links which were held against the interest of general public.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978

12. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another to reiterate that the refusal of full passport to the petitioner affects her personal liberty and there cannot be an arbitrary, unfair and/or unreasonable exercise of power by the Authorities. Rules of natural justice must be followed in this regard. Paragraph 25 of this judgment reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 126 - Cited by 1969 - M H Beg - Full Document

Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999

14. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has contended that there is limited scope of judicial review and it will not be open for this Court to substitute its own findings and interfere with the conclusions as recorded by the Authorities if two views are possible. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra . Para-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 566 - V N Khare - Full Document
1