Disposed

Kattila Peediyakkal Hassankutty v. Union of India

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017WP(C)/12156/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it cannot directly order the Passport Officer to compound an offence or issue a passport under the Indian Passport Act. Instead, it directed the Passport Officer to dispose of the pending representation after receiving necessary court concurrence within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Passport Officer to dispose of the petitioner's representation within two months after obtaining necessary concurrence from the lower court.

Kattila Peediyakkal Hassankutty Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12156 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KATTILA PEEDIYAKKAL HASSANKUTTY, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, PULIKKALKANDY HOUSE, TANALUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

2. THE PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, POST MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.

¶12

3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 12156 of 2014 (T)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CJM COURT, MANJERI IN CRL.MP.NO.44/2014 DATED 8/1/2014. EXT.P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/4/2014.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

============================== W.P.(C)No.12156 of 2014

¶26

============================== Dated this, the 03^rd day of March, 2017.

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking an order against the second respondent that he be directed to compound an offence that is allegedly committed by the petitioner under Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act and to issue a new passport.

¶29

I am afraid that this Court acting under Article

¶30

226 of the Constitution of India is incompetent and perhaps constrained by jurisdictional limits to issue any such order since these are matters which squarely come within the competence and powers of the appropriate authority under the Indian Passport Act.

¶31

At this time, the learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice that his client has preferred Ext.P3 representation before the Passport Officer, Malappuram, who is the competent officer under the Act. He prays that Ext.P3 be directed to be disposed of by the

¶32

W.P.(C)No.12156 of 2014 : 2 :

¶33

Passport Officer as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.

¶35

I have asked the learned ASGl if there is any legal impediment in a direction being issued to the Passport Officer, Malappuram, to take up Ext.P3 and dispose of the same. He says that there is a procedural problem in the sense that, since a crime has registered in the lower court, the Passport Officer would require the concurrence of such court before issuing orders on Ext.P3. I think the learned ASGI is justified in making this submission because, that appears to be the mandate of law.

¶36

In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2^nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, provided the petitioner produces before him the necessary orders from the court, where the crime against him has been registered and is pending. I deem

¶37

W.P.(C)No.12156 of 2014 : 3 :

¶38

it appropriate that the 2^nd respondent complete the exercise as aforesaid, within a period of 2 months from the date on which the petitioner produces the necessary

¶39

concurrence from the court.

¶40

Writ petition is ordered as above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶43

Bb/08/03/2017

¶44

[True copy]

¶45

P.A to Judge

Kattila Peediyakkal Hassankutty v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kattila Peediyakkal Hassankutty 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

E.Velayudhan Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

R.Gopalakrishnan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

M.Syed Alavi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Vasudevan Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Others

The State of Kerala Vs Ramesan