Allowed

Tersaim Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2018CWP/12909/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner permission to re-issue his expired passport to travel to Singapore for work, noting that he had already obtained this Court's explicit permission to travel abroad regarding his pending criminal appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the passport officer to re-issue the passport to the petitioner to enable him to go to Singapore.

Tersaim Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No. 12909 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 12909 of 2018 Date of decision : 06.07.2018

Tersaim Kumar

... Petitioner

versus

Union of India and another ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present: Mr.G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶14

The present petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to re-issue the passporet to the petitioner with reference No. 180005937590 as the earlier passport issued by the Passport Authorities expired on 24.05.2018.

¶15

The petitioner was tried in FIR No.14 dated 3.5.2007 registered under Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station SVB Ambala. He was convicted on 28.2.2011 for a period of two years. The petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.713- SB of 2011 which has been admitted and is pending before this Court. The sentence of the petitioner has also been suspended vide order dated 14.03.2011 (P-6)

¶16

The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 3898-2017 for issuance of passport, which was allowed by this Court on 12.05.2017 and direction was issued to the passport authorities to issue passport to the petitioner with a rider that he can travel abroad after getting the passport. In compliance of the above said order, the passport authorities issued passport on 25.05.2017 which was valid upto 24.05.2018 but the petitioner could not attend the convocation which was scheduled to be held on 02.06.2017 on account of short period for completion of the formalities.

¶17

Gaurav Arora 2018.07.06 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 12909 of 2018

¶19

¶20

Now, the petitioner wants to go to Singapore while working as a Financial Advisror for SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd, which will be organized on 15.07.2018 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner submitted application on 17.04.2018 before the passport authorities for re-ssuance of passport of the petitioner but the same was rejected on account of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner and it has been written that

¶21

“Court order is required for apply for passport”.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of order dated 06.07.2018 passed by this Court in CRM-18999-2018 in CRA-S-713-SB-2014 whereby the petitioner was granted permission to go abroad from 14.07.2018 to 25.07.2018 subject to execution of personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.15 lacs to the satisfaction of CJM, Ambala, with an undertaking to report back on 26.07.2018.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order passed by this Court in CWP No. 8902-2012, decided on 15.01.2014, titled as Tarsem Singh v. Union of India, wherein on expirty of passport of the petitioner, he applied again for issuance of new passport but concealed the factum of his conviction in F.I.R pending against him and thus his case was rejected. He approached this Court and this Court disposed of the petition by giving a direction to the passport officer to issue the passport to the petitioner subject to the condition that he will take necessary permission by filing an application before this Court to go abroad.

¶24

In the present case, the petitioner has taken the permission from this Court mentioned above today i.e 06.07.2018 in CRM-18999-2018 in CRA-S-713-SB-2014 and thus the case of the petitioner is on better footing. He has earlier approached this Court for issuance of passport and he was allowed but he could not go abroad.

¶25

But since now the petitioner has taken the permission from this Court to go abroad, the present petition stands disposed of and direction is given to the passport officer to re-issue the passport to the petitioner to go to Singapore.

¶26

( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶27

06.07.2018

¶28

G Arora

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶30

Yes No

¶31

Gaurav Arora 2018.07.06 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Tersaim Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tersaim Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

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

Suresh Kumar Vs Lokayukta Haryana and Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kamaljit Singh Vs Union of India

Ashok Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Akash Togar @ Chumma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vishnu Vs State of Haryana and Ors.