Disposed

H. Habeeb Navashkhan, v. the Passport Officer

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP(MD)/19433/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner aggrieved by a notice to impound his passport. The Court directed the Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's explanation on merits and pass a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks following natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to look into the petitioner's explanation dated 28.07.2014 and pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits within four weeks.

H. Habeeb Navashkhan, Vs the Passport Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.12.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19433 of 2014

¶7

and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

H.Habeeb Navaskhan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai 625 002.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to impugned notice Ref.No.SCN/301414219/14 in File No.MD1077662654114 dated 09.06.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to activate the petitioner's renewed passport bearing No.L9088175 dated 07.05.2014.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen

¶16

For R1 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan Assistant Solicitor General For R2 & R3 : Mr.V.Muruganandam Additional Govt. Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the respondents.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition praying for calling for the records relating to the impugned notice in Ref.No.SCN/301414219/14 in File No.MD1077662654114 dated 09.06.2014 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order in directing the first respondent to activate his renewed passport bearing No.L9088175 dated 07.05.2014.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he had completed +2 standard and while searching for a suitable job in due course of time, he has secured employment opportunities in abroad and his old passport bearing No.E5912719 dated 13.08.2003 got expired and he applied before the first respondent to renew his old passport No.E5912719 dated 13.08.2003 and provided all the documents and paid the requisite fee. The same was renewed by the first respondent in renewed passport bearing No.L9088175 dated 07.05.2014. Later, he received the original passport.

¶22

To his shock and dismay, he received the impugned notice in Ref.No.SCN/301414219/14 in File No.MD1077662654114 dated 09.06.2014, wherein he had stated that the adverse report against him is received from the police authorities and based on the report, he was asked to submit a reply / explanation in regard to the suppression of material information while applying for passport.

¶23

Soon after receipt of the impugned notice dated 09.06.2014, he addressed a RTI letter to the first respondent on 16.06.2014 and obtained a reply from them that adverse verification report was received from the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram to the effect that he was roped as A6 in Crime No.667 of 2012 under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of I.P.C. on the file of the third respondent.

¶24

According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated as A6 in Crime No.667 of 2012 on the file of third respondent. He has applied for renewal of passport without the aforesaid unavailable material information regarding the pendency of criminal case. Also, it is his plea that he had never given wrong information knowingly nor furnished any false information or suppressed any material information with a view to obtain a passport.

¶25

In short, the pendency of criminal case is not within his knowledge, while applying for the passport. It comes to be known that the petitioner on 28.07.2014, had sent a written explanation for the impugned notice dated 09.06.2014 issued by the first respondent. As on date, the first respondent has not passed any orders on the explanation dated 28.07.2014 submitted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has projected the present writ petition.

¶26

¶27

In view of the fact that the first respondent had only issued the impugned notice dated 09.06.2014 addressed to the petitioner, in and by which he was required to state as to why action should not be taken to impound his passport dated 07.05.2014 under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 etc., and also this Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation on 28.07.2014, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation dated 28.07.2014 of the petitioner and also not delving deep into the subject matter in issue, to prevent an aberration of justice, this Court, directs the first respondent to look into the explanation of the petitioner dated 28.07.2014 for the impugned notice dated 09.06.2014 and to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits in a just, fair and dispassionate manner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order (ofcourse after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner by following the principles of natural justice).

¶28

It is open to the petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleas before the first respondent at the time of first respondent considering his explanation dated 28.07.2014 for the impugned notice dated 09.06.2014.

¶29

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai 625 002.

¶35

The Superintendent of Police,

¶36

District Police Office, Ramanathapuram District.

¶37

The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen, Advocate, in SR. No.64576/14.

¶39

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, in SR No.64867/14.

¶40

W.P(MD)No.19433 of 2014 02.12.2014

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ akv

¶42

msm 17.12.2014 p3/6c

H. Habeeb Navashkhan, v. the Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. Habeeb Navashkhan, v. the Passport Officer

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

Tmt. a. Vijaya Thangam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Abdul Wahith, Vs the District Collector

Nagarajan, Vs the District Supdt. of Police

Ganesan, Vs the Supdt. of Police

M/S Enmanangondan Muslim Vs the District Registrar

K.S. Kandhasamy Vs the Inspector of General of