Disposed

Baiju K.Sivanunni v. the Passport Officer Malapuram

Kerala HC23 Jun 2011WP(C)/7931/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging passport denial due to a pending 498A IPC case, the Court allowed the petitioner to approach the Magistrate's Court with a fresh application within one week to secure passport release previously ordered by this Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to approach Magistrate to file fresh application for passport release within one week.

Baiju K.Sivanunni Vs the Passport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 7931 of 2011(N)

¶5

-------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER: -------------------

¶7

BAIJU,S/O.SIVANUNNI,HOUSE NO.12/12, SIVALAYAM, NEDUNGODE, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA.

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

----------------------

¶11

THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM – 675 051.

¶12

BY SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, A.S.G.I.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C). NO.7931/2011-N:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶18

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE POLICE REPORT.

¶19

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER IN O.P. NO. 760/07, 285/08, 295/08 & 297/08.

¶20

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 07/02/2009.

¶21

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 06/08/09.

¶22

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).36075/10 DT. 06/12/2010.

¶23

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED DTD. 17/11/11.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶29

W.P.(C) No.7931 OF 2011

¶30

Dated this the 23^rd day of June 2011

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the stand taken by the respondent with regard to the release of passport, which was surrendered by the petitioner, as required by the 1^st respondent referring to a Criminal case, which is sated as pending against the petitioner (preferred by the wife of the petitioner, in respect of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code). The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the concerned Magistrate's Court, wherein interference was declined and the petition was dismissed as per order dated 04-12-2010 (in C.M.P No.9403/2010 in C.C No.112/2008), observing that the passport was not surrendered as per the order of the said Court, and as such, no positive relief could be extended to the petitioner.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this Court pointing out the grievance by filing W.P.(C) No.36076/2010, which came up for consideration on 06-12-2010, when the same was disposed of, observing that the petitioner should approach the learned Magistrate for the clearance to be given and that the respondent is to act upon the

¶34

W.P.(C)No. 7931/2011

¶35

¶36

same. The matter still remains to be considered and finalised by the concerned authority and the petitioner is stated as virtually prevented from approaching the Magistrate's Court, in view of Ext.P9 order dated 04-12-2010, passed by the learned Magistrate (produced along with I.A No.9125/2011).

¶37

Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent as well.

¶38

On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was on 04-12-2010, ie, prior to the date of passing Ext.P6 judgment by this Court. There is no case for the petitioner that, pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court, the petitioner had approached the Magistrate's Court by filing necessary application, bringing the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment to the notice of the learned Magistrate.

¶39

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Magistrate's Court by filing a fresh application, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate as to whether the passport of the petitioner could be released as already ordered by

¶40

W.P.(C)No. 7931/2011

¶41

¶42

this Court in Ext.P6, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue further steps before the 1^st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'one week' from the date of filing such petition.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶44

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶45

vdv

Baiju K.Sivanunni v. the Passport Officer Malapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju K.Sivanunni v. the Passport Officer Malapuram

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

The Manager, State Bank of Mysore Vs Saji P.Mathew

M.G.Kuttappan Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors.

Dr.E.Anzarudeen Vs State of Kerala

Antony Ben Vs State of Kerala and Others

Dr.Nisha.K.P Vs Rajeev Sadanandan and Another

Special Tahsildar (La),National Highway Vs Antony Ben