Disposed

Suresh Mahadeo Pal v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2009WP/533/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a passport revocation order, arguing prematureness. Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order within two weeks without limitation bar. Dismissal of appeal barred if none filed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to file appeal against the order dated 30.01.2009 within two weeks; failure results in confirmation of order.

Suresh Mahadeo Pal Vs Union of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.134 OF 2009

¶3

Mr. Suresh Mahadeo Pal. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

.. Respondents

¶6

Shri P.R. Yadav for the Petitioner. Shri H.K. Vardhan with Shri V.B. Tiwari for Respondent No.1. Ms Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J DATED : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2009.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶10

This Petition raises a challenge to the letter dated 26^th November, 2006 issued by the Passport Authorities. In fact, this Petition would have been pre-mature for all purposes when learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that after issuance of this letter, they have already passed an order on 30^th January, 2009 in terms of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 wherein it has been decided that the passport of the Petitioner has been revoked/impounded. This order is appealable before the Competent Authority in terms of Section 11 of the said Act.

¶11

¶12

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that earlier a notice has been sent to the Petitioner which mentioned a wrong number of passport of the Petitioner and thereafter a notice/letter dated 26^th November, 2008 was issued to the Petitioner. But the Petitioner filed a present Writ Petition and did not file a proper reply before the Competent Authority which has resulted in passing of the order dated 30^th January, 2009.

¶13

In these circumstances, we dispose of this Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal, if he so desires, against the order dated 30^th January, 2009 within a period of two weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed by the Petitioner, the same would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided by the concerned Authority expeditiously. In the event, no appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the order dated 30^th January, 2009 passed by the

¶14

¶15

Competent Authority shall stand confirmed and advantage of this

¶16

order will not be available to the Petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶17

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J

Suresh Mahadeo Pal v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Mahadeo Pal v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Mahesh Gadhia Mumbai Vs Bharat Petrolium Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Jasveer Kaur Alias Jasveer Kaur Ahluwalia Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 4 Ors.

The Best Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply Transport and Undertaking and 2 Ors.

Capt. Sukhdev Singh Punjab Vs the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. Mumbai

Simplax Infrastructures Ltd. Vs Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ors. and Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi, Transport and General Kamgar Uni

Rajsekharan S. Nair Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.