In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged inaction regarding a passport application. After hearing submissions on a related investigation into a fake passport, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without further directions or costs.
No order as to costs; the writ petition stands disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.04.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P. No.7255 of 2014
7.The Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Thiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's passport application dated 21.05.2012 under file No.MA1061437457312 with in the time as stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Yusuf for M/s.Nathan & Associates For R1, R2 & R7: Mr.J.Madana Gopal Rao Central Government Standing Counsel For R3 to R6 : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Special Government Pleader O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's passport application dated 21.05.2012 under file No.MA1061437457312 with in the time as stipulated by this Court.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application on 21.05.2012 to the second respondent, so far no order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court.
3.The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner suppressed the material information in her passport application. The petitioner has already lodged a complaint dated 08.08.2012, with regard to fake passport issued in her name on 22.05.2002 bearing No.E 2008457 issued at Trichy and delivered at Nagapattinam. Further it is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the fake passport only when the petitioner applied for a new passport on 21.05.2012 before the passport authorities in Chennai. The said complaint has been preferred before the SubInspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai and investigation is pending in the said complaint. Therefore, the petitioner's application will be decided on receipt of the
verification reports from the Central Crime Branch, Team XIX, Chennai and under the provisions of the Indian Passports Act, 1967.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed on 05.01.2017 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagapattinam and the said final report has been filed before this Court along with the additional typed set of papers.
5.In view of the above said submissions of the parties, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
ah
To
W.P. No.7255 of 2014
AD(CO) CSL/11.04.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed seeking mandamus to dispose of a pending passport application should be disposed of finally.
Whether an order refusing to pass any operative direction on costs or the passport application is permissible.
M/s.Devisri Mari Somasundaram, D/o.Mr.Somasundaram
The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Tamil Nadu
The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs
The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department
The Commissioner of Police, Passport Verification Division, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai
The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
