Disposed

Sakuntala Manohar, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC24 Jan 2020WP/30337/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to consider and pass orders on a representation filed regarding the return of a seized passport. The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Regional Passport Officer for an enquiry and produce documents. Based on the enquiry, the Respondent was directed to pass an order with reasons by a specified date. The petition was disp

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before the Regional Passport Officer for enquiry; Respondent directed to pass an order with reasons based on enquiry documents by 15.03.2020.

Sakuntala Manohar, Vs The Regional Passport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 24.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.30337 of 2019

¶6

Mrs.Sakuntala Manohar .. Petitioner

¶7

..Vs..

¶8

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royala Towers No.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on representation dated 07.08.2019.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Shamusudeen Raja, For Respondent : Ms.P.J.Anitha, CGSC. ORDER

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 07.08.2019.

¶13

In the representation dated 07.08.2019, the petitioner had sought return of passport bearing No.P5394713. The said passport was seized by the Immigration Officials, Chennai on 12.05.2018, on the allegation that the petitioner is a Myanmar citizen and that she had obtained the passport by furnishing false information regarding the place of birth.

¶14

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that in the writ petition the petitioner had stated that she born in Chennai on 15.07.1976. Therefore, it is stated that she should produce her Birth Certificate and also document relating to her parents. In this connection, the respondent have

¶15

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

¶16

issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 05.11.2019 calling upon the petitioner to give proper clarifications and explanations.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had appeared for the enquiry before the respondent and which fact is however denied by the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

However, to put the matter at rest, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royala Towers No.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002, in the first instance, on 07.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m and thereafter as and when called by the respondent. The petitioner must produce all relevant documents as required. If the documents are not available, the petitioner may give an explanation in writing. Based on the enquiry, documents and explanations, the respondent may pass an order with reasons, on or before 15.03.2020.

¶19

With these above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar smv To,

¶20

The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Chennai Royala Towers No.2 and 3, IV Floor, Old No.785, New No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.P.J.Anitha,, Advocate, S.R.No. 5147 +1cc to Mr.A.Shamsudeenraja, Advocate, S.R.No.5197

¶22

W.P.No.30337 of 2019

¶23

GP(CO) GN(04/02/2020)

¶24

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

Sakuntala Manohar, v. The Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakuntala Manohar, 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

B.Hariprasad, Vs The Inspector of Police

E.Muruvayee Vs The District Collector

Shokkath Ali Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

S.Anandan Vs The Commissioner

S.Kumarasamy, Vs The Commissioner

V.Anandan Vs The Member Secretary