Dismissed

Dr.Bhushan S/O Sudhakar Wankhaded v. the Immigration Officer

Karnataka HC9 May 2019WP/110114/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of passport impoundment orders. The Court held that since an alternative appeal remedy was available to the petitioner, the writ was dismissed with directions to the relevant authority to decide the appeal within 30 days. Limitation from the date of filing was to be considered.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directive to appropriate authority to decide pending appeal within 30 days; limitation period from writ filing considered.

Dr.Bhushan S/O Sudhakar Wankhaded Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS.110114-115/2019 (GM-PASS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR.BHUSHAN S/O SUDHAKAR WANKHADE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL OFFICER, R/O: 04, ANUMOTI NIWAS, SHAMSAFALYA COLONY, V.M.V. ROAD, AMRAVATI, TQ: & DIST: AMRAVATI, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. ALSO RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.208, ABDULLA TOWER-1, AL NAHDA-2, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.SUMANGALA A.CHAKALABBI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE IMMIGRATION OFFICER BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, R.G.I.AIRPORT, HYDERABAD.

¶13

THE HOME SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶14

¶15

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER VIDESH BHAVAN, C-45, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-51.

¶16

DR.SUJATA BHUSHAN WANKHADE AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCCU: DOCTOR, R/O:C/O: SOMASHEKAR HUAPPA ALAWANI, 295 SECTOR 2 SHIV-BASA NAGAR, MANGALMURTI EXTENTION, BELAGAVI-590016. (KARNATAKA) PASSPORT NO.H 2364796.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By SRI. M. B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:

¶21

I. TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER IN LETTER REFERENCE NO.IMP313458152/19 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 25.03.2019 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A WHEREBY THE RESPONDNET NO.3 HAS UNILATERALLY IMPOUNDED THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER; II. TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF PASSPORT IMPOUND SLIP ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING PASSPORT NO.J1639028 DATED 21.04.2019 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B ON THE BASIS OF ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶22

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Sri. M. B. Kanavi, learned CGSC takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying this Court to issue writ of certiorari quashing the order under Annexure-A.

¶27

On perusal of Annexure-A, it is seen that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to appear within ten days from the receipt of the notice. However, the holder of the passport has not responded to the said notice within the stipulated time and as such, the impugned order as per Annexure-A has been passed.

¶28

Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the right of the petitioner has been affected under Article 14 and the order that has been passed is under Section 10 3(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 and not under Section 10 3(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, but however, in the order itself an alternative relief has been shown that, if the petitioner desires, he can prefer an appeal

¶29

¶30

before the Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer, by urging his grievances.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the matter has been settled between the parties with regard to the matrimonial affairs and he was ready to appear before the Court. The said grounds may be urged before the Joint Secretary when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.

¶32

Under the said facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to approach the appropriate Authority mentioned in the impugned order and the said Authority is directed to dispose of the said appeal within an outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the limitation that has been taken at filing the writ petition is also be considered while considering the said appeal.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

gab

Dr.Bhushan S/O Sudhakar Wankhaded v. the Immigration Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bhushan S/O Sudhakar Wankhaded v. the Immigration Officer

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

M Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim @ Abdul Karim Vs Superintendent of Police

Smt Asha Vs State of Karnataka

Manja @ Kuppi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth Vs Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sadanand S/O Narayan Naik Vs District Legal Services Authority