Disposed

Smt Zakiya Noor Zaiba v. Government of India

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2013WP/16775/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition challenged the impounding of a passport under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act without detailed reasons and non-consideration of representation. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within six weeks. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2013 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Smt Zakiya Noor Zaiba Vs Government of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.16775/2013 (GM-PASS)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Zakiya Noor Zaiba D/o Sri Siddiq Ahmed Baig W/o Sri Maqsood Pasha Aged about 22 years 9^th Cross, P.H. Colony Tumkur. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Javeed S, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

Government of India Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi.

¶12

Regional Passport Office Ministry of External Affairs Government of Karnataka 8^th Block, 80 ft Road Koramangala Bangalore – 560 095 … Respondents

¶13

(By Sri S Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG. for R1 & 2)

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation dated 18.02.2013 vide Annx-D.

¶15

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the representation dated 18.02.2013 vide Annexure-D to the petition.

¶19

The petitioner who had applied for a passport

¶20

was issued with a passport bearing No.K2621089 on 14.02.2012. The second respondent by the communication dated 11.05.2012 issued to the petitioner has intimated the petitioner that the said passport is being impounded under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act since the same has been obtained by suppression/wrong information provided by the passport holder. The case of the petitioner is that no false information has been furnished nor has the petitioner suppressed any material information for obtaining

¶21

passport. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made representation dated 18.02.2013 furnishing all details and seeking revocation of the order impounding the passport. Since the second respondent has not

¶22

¶23

considered and passed any order in accordance with law, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Firstly, a perusal of the communication dated 11.05.2012 would disclose that except for referring to the provision and intimating the petitioner that there is suppression/wrong information and directing the petitioner to submit the passport to the office of the second respondent with immediate effect, the details of the suppression said to have been made or wrong information said to have been furnished has not been intimated to the petitioner. When the petitioner has furnished details vide Annexure-D dated 18.2.2013, the second respondent was required to take note of the same, refer to the materials placed by the petitioner and then come to the conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law. Since the same has not been done, a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 18.02.2013 as per law and pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶25

¶26

To enable expeditious disposal, the petitioner

¶27

shall now furnish one more copy of the representation and the supporting documents along with a copy of this order

¶28

with the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall thereafter consider the material put forth by the petitioner and pass necessary order as per law and intimate the petitioner in that regard as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date on which the representation is made.

¶29

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

akc/bms

Smt Zakiya Noor Zaiba v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Zakiya Noor Zaiba v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mir Azmathulla Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Kum Madeeha Banu Vs State of Karnataka

E Ramaswamy Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Chandramathi C Shetty Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt K Parvati Amma Vs Commissioner

Smt Pavana H C @ Hemalakshmi Vs Sri M D Prashanth