Dismissed

Muhammed Jabir v. the Union of India

Kerala HC24 Feb 2016WP(C)/4947/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging passport impoundment due to criminal involvement. While finding no scope to overturn the impoundment order, the Court directed Sessions Court to grant bail with permission to stay abroad for up to two years if the petitioner appears before it.

What did the court decide?

Permission to Sessions Court to grant bail with permission to stay abroad for a period of two years.

Muhammed Jabir Vs the Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4947 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

MUHAMMED JABIR, AGED 30 YEARS, PULINKUNNATHEL HOUSE, PIDAVANNOOR P.O., NARANIPPUZHA, NANNAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING WITH AND STAYING AT SHOKRI HASSAN TRADING CO (L.L.C.), 1 B/R, APT # 108-NO2-PERSIA INTERNATIONAL CITY, DUBAI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 011.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, CPV DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110 011.

¶14

3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, INTERCITY ARCADE, DOWN HILL POST, MALAPPURAM-676 519.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

WP(C).No. 4947 of 2016 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OLD PASSPORT (NO.G1634669) OF THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENT PERMIT STAMPED ON THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.4-6-15 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R3.

¶25

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.17-9-15 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO R3.

¶26

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DT.29-11-15.

¶27

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF EXT.P6.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶29

ANNEXURE R3(a): TRUE COPY OF ADVERSE POLICE VERIFICATION REPORT ISSUED BY SP, MALAPPURAM.

¶30

ANNEXURE R3(b): TRUE COPYOF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.7.2.2014.

¶31

ANNEXURE R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DTD.26.11.2014.

¶32

ANNEXURE R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER DTD.7.7.2015.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 4947 of 2016

¶38

------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is working abroad. He is involved in a

¶41

crime. The passport was issued to him without noting the registration of the crime. Thereafter, the Passport Authority issued notices to impound the passport. The petitioner did not respond to the notices. The petitioner's passport has been

¶42

impounded. The petitioner challenges the impounding of the passport.

¶43

As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Passport

¶44

Authority, the petitioner has received the notices. The petitioner also has no case that he is not involved in the crime.

¶45

W.P.(C). No. 4947 of 2016 2

¶46

Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no

¶47

scope for interference with the decision of the Passport

¶48

Authority in impounding the passport.

¶49

However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is

¶50

working abroad, the following directions are issued :

¶51

i) If the petitioner approaches the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the court shall grant permission to the petitioner to stay abroad.

¶52

ii) The application shall be considered within three days of moving such application.

¶53

iii) In view of the fact that the petitioner is working abroad, the court shall grant permission at least for two years to stay abroad.

¶54

iv) However, for granting any permission, the court can impose such terms and conditions.

¶55

v) It is made clear that the Sessions Court need to grant the permission only if the petitioner had appeared before the court and released on bail.

¶56

vi) Based on the permission, if the petitioner

¶57

W.P.(C). No. 4947 of 2016 3

¶58

approaches the consulate in Dubai, the petitioner's application for passport shall be considered in accordance with law, without any delay.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

bpr

Muhammed Jabir v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Jabir v. the Union of India

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

Karthika Ramachandran Vs Regional Passport Officer

Thoppil Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

U.A. Abdul Azeez Vs the Environmental Enginner

P.K.Unnikrishnan Vs K.Sivakumaran Unnithan

Susamma Varghese Vs Sri. M. Shamsudheen

Susheela Vs Village Officer