Partly allowed

Kishori Lal v. Union of India and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2024CWP/9289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the passport authority's order rejecting the petitioner's application for re-issuance of passport due to an incorrect date of birth. The court found that although the authority claimed no reply was received, the petitioner had sent a response via speed post. The matter was remanded for a fresh consideration of the reply.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order; directed Respondents to pass a fresh order considering the petitioner's reply within four weeks.

Kishori Lal Vs Union of India and Another — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

104

¶3

�� CWP No. 9289 of 2024 Date of Decision:02.05.2024

Kishori Lal

….Petitioner

vs.

Union of India and another

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India

¶12

***

¶13

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of order dated 16.02.2024 (Annexure P-12) whereby respondent No. 2 has rejected his application for re-issuance of passport with correct date of birth.

¶15

Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advocate inter alia contends that petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-9) and he filed reply to the same on 23.01.2024 (Annexure P-10) still respondent has passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 observing that petitioner has not filed reply within 10 days. The respondent has rejected application of the petitioner seeking passport.

¶16

Ms. Saigeeta Shrivastava, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India submits that as per their record, reply was not received within time, PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.05.02 04:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP No. 9289 of 2024 -2- ��

¶18

thus, the impugned order came to be passed without considering response of the petitioner, nevertheless, the passport authority, if so directed by this Court, would pass a fresh order.

¶19

To avoid multiplicity of the litigation and considering the fact that petitioner through speed post had sent his response to show cause notice, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 and direct the respondent to pass a fresh order, considering reply dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-10), in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within four weeks from today. It is made clear that the fresh order shall be passed in the light of submissions made in the reply.

¶20

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶21

02.05.2024

¶22

paramjit

¶23

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable:	No

¶24

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.05.02 04:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kishori Lal v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lal v. Union of India and Another

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

Gurake Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Jasleen Kaur @ Jasleen Kaur Brar Vs Regional Passport Officer and Others

Anuradha Vs Union of India and Others

Buta Ram Sharma Vs Union of India and Another

Kulwinder Singh Sidhu Vs Union of India and Others

Saraj Singh Vs Union of India and Others