Disposed

Sri. M. K. Ayaz v. Union of India

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023WP/20589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted a direction to the Regional Passport Office to re-fix an appointment date within four weeks for a pending passport re-issue application, allowing the petitioner to seek a change of appointment without commenting on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to fix re-appointment date within four weeks; petitioner permitted to file online application for re-fixation.

Sri. M. K. Ayaz Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38968 WP No. 20589 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.20589 OF 2023 (GM-PASS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M. K. AYAZ S/O. M. A. ABDUL KADEER, NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NEAR BHARATH ALUMINUM WORK, KARNADASA ROAD, MADIKERI TOWN AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJU S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶14

PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP, DIVISIONS MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO. 8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶15

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE 8^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38968 WP No. 20589 of 2023

¶17

BENGALURU-560 095. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. UMESH P. B., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 TO RE-ISSUE/RENEW THE PASSPORT OF PETITIONER IN FILE NO.BN4073550354721 BY VIRTUE OF ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 1.9.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is seeking mandamus for re-

¶23

issue/renewal of the Passport in File

¶24

No.BN4073550354721 by virtue of Online application dated 01.09.2021.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for re-issue of Passport was filed on 01.09.2021. The petitioner was given an appointment on 31.07.2023 at 11.30 a.m., before the third respondent. It is submitted that the third respondent has not permitted the petitioner to appear before the authorities on the appointed date without reasons. The application is

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38968 WP No. 20589 of 2023

¶27

pending before the third respondent as on today and seeks direction to the third respondent to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the criminal case referred to in the Police report dated 17.07.2023 that C.C.No.324/2020 has been stayed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7320/2023 by order dated 17.08.2023

¶28

and hence, Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), is not attracted.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the Police report dated 17.07.2023 communicating pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No.324/2020, wherein the petitioner has failed to appear before the Court, in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled for re-issue of the Passport. He further submits that the petitioner has not appeared before the third respondent on 31.07.2023, which is the appointed date. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner can only seek re-fixation of appointment through filing an application on-line.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:38968 WP No. 20589 of 2023

¶32

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if an appointment is granted by the third respondent pursuant to the application for re-issuing of Passport dated 01.09.2021, the respondent authorities would be persuaded that the criminal case pending under the Negotiable Instruments Act would not cover the grounds contemplated under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act.

¶34

In view of the application dated 01.09.2021 is still pending consideration before the third respondent, this Court deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity by refixing the appointment date in relation to application dated 01.09.2021. The petitioner is permitted to file Online application for re-fixation of appointment date and the third respondent is directed to fix re-appointment date within four weeks from today and consider the application,

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:38968 WP No. 20589 of 2023

¶36

¶37

in accordance with law. It is made clear that no opinion is

¶38

expressed on merits of the application.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of, with the above

observations.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

MV List No.: 38 Sl No.: 7

Sri. M. K. Ayaz v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. K. Ayaz v. Union 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

M/S Elastos Acia LLP Vs Union Bank of India

Mrs D Veena @ Bhavya Vs Sri Sachin K S

M Kotturesh Vs Smt Sarvamangala K G @ Sowmya

Sri H.S Suresh Babu, Vs Indian Oil Corporation