A convict who had undergone his sentence sought issuance of a passport withheld after his application. State counsel confirmed no case was pending against him; Union counsel undertook to decide the application within eight weeks in light of that statement. The writ petition was disposed of on this assurance.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
102
2024:PHHC:050612 CWP No. 4880 of 2024 Date of Decision:16.04.2024
Narinder Pal Singh
….Petitioner
vs.
Union of India and others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.04.16 03:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 4880 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:050612
convicted vide judgment dated 18.07.2005, thus, rigour of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 is not applicable.
disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
16.04.2024 paramjit
| Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes | |
|---|---|
| Whether reportable: | No |
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.04.16 03:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the passport authority must decide the convicted petitioner's pending passport application despite prior convictions.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Narinder Pal Singh
Union of India
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
