Disposed

Abdul Latheef M. v. the Regional Passport Officer

Kerala HC6 Mar 2024WP(C)/232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport holder facing impoundment over an adverse police verification report based on a criminal case later quashed by this Court sought withdrawal of the show-cause notice. The Court directed him to file an additional statement and the Passport Officer to decide on his objections taking note of the quashing order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file additional statement within two weeks; RPO to consider Ext.P3 and additional objections and take decision within four weeks; interim order to continue for six weeks.

Abdul Latheef M. Vs the Regional Passport Officer — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 232 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

ABDUL LATHEEF M.
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM U.K., MALAYARIKKATHU,
KADANGODE, CHERUVATHUR P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADVS.
T.K.VIPINDAS
RAMADEVI.P

¶7

RESPONDENT

¶8

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 006.

¶9

SRI.S.MANU-DSGI

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022
 2

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2024

¶14

The petitioner, who is holder of an Indian Passport, seeks to quash Ext.P1 and to direct the respondent to keep all proceedings initiated as per Ext.P1 in abeyance till the disposal of Ext.P2 Criminal Miscellaneous Case on the file of this Court.

¶15

The petitioner states that he is holder of a Passport. The Passport was renewed from time to time. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice of the Regional Passport Officer stating that there is an adverse Police Verification Report against the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.127/2018 of Chandera Police Station. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why action should not be taken to impound the Passport dated 03.11.2021 of the petitioner under

¶16

Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶17

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

The petitioner submits that during the validity of a previous Passport, the crime was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the crime against the petitioner. These incidents happened during the Covid-19 pandemic time. The petitioner was under the bona fide impression that this Court has quashed the proceedings against him. That is the reason for not disclosing pendency of the crime at the time of renewal of application.

¶20

The petitioner submitted that this Court considered Crl.M.C. No.4556 of 2019 filed by the petitioner and the proceedings against the petitioner stand quashed. In view of the order of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.4556 of 2019, the grounds for issuing Ext.P1 Show-cause Notice no more subsist. Taking into consideration the afore facts, the respondent is compellable to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Ext.P1.

¶21

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

Deputy Solicitor General of India entered

¶24

appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Deputy Solicitor General of India pointed out that at the time of renewal of Passport application, a crime was pending against the petitioner and there was an adverse Police Verification Report. This is a clear instance of suppression of material facts at the time of making an application to the Passport Authority. Ext.P1 Show-cause Notice is therefore fully justified, contended the Deputy Solicitor General of India.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the respondent.

¶27

From the pleadings it is evident that the validity of the petitioner’s Passport was to expire in 2021. The petitioner made an application for renewal of Passport. Ext.P1 would disclose that a Police Verification Report was obtained. According to the Deputy Solicitor General of India,

¶28

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

the Passport application was made under Tatkal Scheme. Subsequently, when a Police Verification Report was received, it was found that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.127 of 2018 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 140 IPC of Chandera Police Station.

¶31

The case was registered in the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Hosdurg as C.C. No.715 of 2019. It is based on the Police Verification Report that the respondent has issued Ext.P1 seeking to take action under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. The fact remains that during this period, the petitioner had approached this Court filing Crl.M.C.No.4556 of 2019 seeking to quash the criminal case pending against the petitioner.

¶32

This Court, after hearing the case in detail, passed an order dated 04.02.2022 in Crl.M.C. No.4556 of 2019 quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that the

¶33

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

incidents occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that this Court had quashed the criminal proceedings at the time of making an application.

¶36

Taking into consideration the afore facts, I am of the view that the respondent shall take a decision taking note of the order of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.4556 of 2019 also. As the order of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.4556 of 2019 was passed during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner may bring the additional facts to the notice of the Regional Passport Officer for taking a just decision in the matter.

¶37

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the petitioner to file additional statement regarding the criminal case, if any, within a period of two weeks from today. The Regional Passport Officer shall consider Ext.P3 objection filed by the petitioner and additional objection, if any, filed by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon, within a

¶38

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

further period of four weeks. The benefit of interim order

¶41

passed by this Court will continue to enure to the benefit of

¶42

the petitioner for a period of six weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.232 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 232/2022

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION CUM
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9/11/2021.
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.MC 4556/2019.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
DATED 4/1/2022.

Abdul Latheef M. v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef M. v. the Regional Passport Officer

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

Rajasekhara Kurup Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government of Kerala

Nafeesa Vs Manjeri Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Merlin Binoy Vs the Authorized Officer

Ibrahim v Vs Nilamabur Co-Op Urban Bank Ltd.

Mrs. Staly. S Vs the Authorized Officer

Fathima Mumtaz, Vs the Union of India