Allowed

Chintapandu Venkateshwarlu v. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC12 Jun 2012WP/11028/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that imposing a penalty on the petitioner for omission to mention the earlier passport was neither just nor proper. The Court directed the passport authorities to consider the fresh passport application without demanding the penalty.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the application for fresh passport without insisting on payment of penalty of Rs.5000/-.

Chintapandu Venkateshwarlu Vs The Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11028 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to grant passport facilities to the petitioner and direct the 2^nd respondent to accept the explanations given by the petitioner on 09.05.2008 and 05.03.2012 respectively.

¶5

2. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

¶6

3. According to the petitioner, he applied for Indian passport at the Regional Passport office, Hyderabad and the same was granted bearing No.A7743746 valid for a period of ten years from 13.05.1999 to 12.05.2009. Petitioner married one Ch.Madhavi on 11.05.2007 and subsequently she applied for a passport. Petitioner sought inclusion of the name of his spouse and also correction of his father’s name as ‘Bhagaiah’ instead of ‘Bagaiah’. The passport authorities advised him to apply for a fresh passport and as such petitioner made an application, dated 08.01.2008. The Special Branch Police Officer came to the petitioner’s house for verification and advised the petitioner to surrender his old passport. Accordingly, on 25.02.2008 petitioner surrendered his old passport under acknowledgment of the 2^nd respondent’s office.

¶7

The passport officer sought the explanation of the petitioner for suppression of the material information in the application regarding the previous passport. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.03.2008. On 23.04.2008, petitioner received intimation from the 2^nd respondent demanding payment of penalty of Rs.5000/- on the ground that the petitioner suppressed material information regarding the previous passport. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.05.2008 and subsequently made a representation on 05.03.2012 requesting the authorities to accept his explanation and issue fresh passport. As there is no response, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶8

4. It is not disputed that the petitioner applied for a fresh passport as the earlier passport’s validity was due to expire on 12.05.2009 and also the petitioner sought inclusion of his wife’s name and correction of his father’s name. The said application of fresh passport was made on 08.01.2008. It is also not in dispute that in the said application petitioner failed to mention about the particulars of the existing passport. 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 18.11.2008, demanding petitioner’s explanation for suppression of material information about the previous passport and surrender the same and pay penalty of Rs.5000/-. The said demand for payment of penalty is being insisted upon for issuance of the fresh passport. Though in the application the petitioner

¶9

failed to mention the particulars of the earlier passport, the fact remains that within a few days of making the application the petitioner has in fact surrendered his earlier passport under acknowledgment of the 2^nd respondent’s office and the same is not disputed. The fact that the petitioner has surrendered the passport would rule out any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner till his omission to mention the particulars of the earlier passport in the fresh application.

¶10

5. Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passport Act, 1967 contemplates imposition of penalty only when the applicant knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining the passport.

¶11

6. The fact that the petitioner has surrendered his passport within a few days of making the application would only indicate that there was no intention to suppress the material information for the purpose of making any coercive gain. From the mere fact that the particulars regarding the earlier passport have not been mentioned in the application, no inference of deliberate or intentional suppression of material information in the application can be gathered. The application for issuance of the fresh passport is pending since 2008.

¶12

7. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated

¶13

that they have no objection to grant the passport if the petitioner pays the penalty amount of Rs.5000/-.

¶14

8. In the circumstances of the present case, it is considered that imposition of the penalty of Rs.5000/- is neither just nor proper. Accordingly, respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of fresh passport subject to his eligibility otherwise and in accordance with law, without insisting upon payment of penalty of Rs.5000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶17

12^th June, 2012. Tsy

Chintapandu Venkateshwarlu v. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintapandu Venkateshwarlu v. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badireddy Bulivenkann Vs The Additional Agent to the Government

Smt. Azra Jabeen Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Pinnamaraju Srinivasa Raju, Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited

Guvvala Sayamma, Vs The District Collector

M/s Khabri Exports, Vs a.P.Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. (Apcpdcl)

K. Gopala Reddy, Vs Union of India