Disposed

Mr.Venkatesan Prabakaran v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC12 Oct 2015WP/30791/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ mandamus for a tatkal passport. The Court allowed the petitioner to apply for the passport contingent upon paying an imposed fine of Rs.5,000 as penalty for alleged suppression of fact regarding a 1998 passport, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to make a fresh application for passport and enclose receipt of Rs.5,000 penalty.

Mr.Venkatesan Prabakaran Vs The Regional Passport Officer — Madras HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P. No.30791 of 2014

¶6

Venkatesan Prabakaran ... Petitioner

¶7

vs. 1. The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Office Rayala Towers, No.2 & 3, IV Floor,

¶8

Old No.785, New No.158,

¶9

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶10

Passport Seva Kendra Regional Passport Office Navins Presidium,

¶11

No.103, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith issue passport to the petitioner vide file No.MA2071040005713 dated 07.06.2013 on the file of 2^nd respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Natarajan For R1 and R2 : Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, SCGSC

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Seeking issuance of tatkal passport vide file No.MA2071040005713 dated 07.06.2013, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶16

From the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner applied for passport and got two passports one in the year 1996 and another in the year 1998. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner denies and disputes that the petitioner received the subsequent passport.

¶17

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

¶18

It is also seen that the petitioner was imposed with the fine of Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the statement made in the counter affidavit is disputed, the petitioner would pay the said amount.

¶19

Admittedly, the petitioner acknowledges one thing, i.e. he received the first passport in the year 1996 and the subsequent passport, which is said to have been received in the year 1998, has not been renewed. Even otherwise, penalty has been imposed for the alleged suppression of fact by the petitioner.

¶20

Thus, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner will have to be permitted to make an application seeking tatkal passport enclosing the payment of Rs.5,000/- imposed as penalty for the alleged suppression of fact in obtaining the subsequent passport in the year 1998. As and when the petitioner makes a fresh application enclosing the receipt for due payment of the said amount, the same will have to be considered notwithstanding the said issue pertaining to the subsequent passport, which is said to have been issued in the year 1998.

¶21

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ogy To 1. The Regional Passport Officer Regional Passport Office Rayala Towers, No.2 & 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2. Passport Seva Kendra Regional Passport Office Navins Presidium, No.103, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. +1 cc to Mr.J.madanagopal, Advocate, sr.55682 +1 cc to Mr.B.Natarajan, Advocate, sr.55554 tej co, kra 15/10 W.P. No.30791 of 2014

¶22

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

Mr.Venkatesan Prabakaran v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Venkatesan Prabakaran v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Maheshkumar Vs The Registrar

P. Radhakrishnan, Vs The District Collector

K.Ramesh Vs The District Collector

Sterling Spinners Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T.D.Muthuraman, Vs the Tahsildhar

S.Ramesh, Vs Inspector General of