Disposed

Union of India, v. Reena Chandy

Kerala HC10 Jan 2022RP/959/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in a review petition against a prior judgment regarding passport application jurisdiction, held that while the Ministry of Home Affairs is the competent authority, it was not a party to the writ. Consequently, the Ministry was impleaded suo motu, and the petitioner was directed to approach the Ministry for consideration. The review petition was disposed of by issuing amended directions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to approach the Ministry of Home Affairs (added as 3rd respondent) by filing a representation within one month to decide the passport application question.

Union of India, Vs Reena Chandy — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 959 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2021 IN WP(C) 4763/2021 OF HIGH

¶7

COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, E BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 110001.

¶10

2 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN 682 036.

¶11

BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

REENA CHANDY, W/O. SAMUEL CHANDY, 16-A, NOEL MATTEETHARA HEIGHTS, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶14

R BY SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RP NO. 959 OF 2021 ..2..

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Court by judgment dated 22.11.2021 in W.P.C No.4763 of 2021 has directed the petitioner to approach the 1^st respondent by filing representation within a period of one month from the date of judgment and the 1^st respondent shall consider the same as per the procedure specified and decide the question raised at the earliest in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶19

The respondents in the writ petition has filed this review petition stating that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the competent authority to consider the representation under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs is not arrayed as a party in the writ petition. In the light of the above submission, the 'Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001' is suo motu impleaded as the additional 3^rd

¶20

RP NO. 959 OF 2021 ..3..

¶21

respondent in the writ petition (W.P.C.No.4763 of 2021). The Registry may make necessary amendments in the cause title. The direction in paragraph '17' shall stand corrected as follows:

¶22

…... For the said purpose, the petitioner may approach the additional 3^rd respondent by filing representation within a period of one month from today and the additional 3^rd respondent shall consider the same as per the procedure specified and decide the question raised at the earliest in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Based on such decision, the 2^nd respondent shall take further steps on the application of the petitioner for passport.

¶23

The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶26

SB/10/01/2022

Union of India, v. Reena Chandy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. Reena Chandy

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

N.K Jose Vs Joby K Joseph

Soopy Vs Darshan Singh Sandhu

Abdulla Vs Mr. Darshan Singh Sandhu

V.Ratheesh Vs the National Insurance Co.Ltd

The Managing Director Vs Suresh Babu

Muthulakshmi Vs State of Kerala