WP/20272/2009 of Duvvada Rajesh Kumar Vs The Regional Pass Port Officer on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

The petitioner was issued passport by the 1[st]respondent on 27.10.2004, valid for a period of five years. The petitioner is said to have traveled abroad for threetimes on that. The petitioner states that he received aninvitation from a Social Welfare Organisation in Canada toparticipate at a meeting between 10[th] and 18[th]September, 2009. Since the passport was going to expireon 26.10.2009, he submitted an application on25.08.2009 to the 1[st] respondent. The passport of thepetitioner was found to be in a damaged condition.Therefore, the 1[st] respondent refused to receive theapplication for renewal and instead, advised the petitionerto apply for a duplicate passport.

The petitioner submitted another application on09.09.2009 by remitting a sum of Rs.2,500/-. He assertsthat the application filed by him was for renewal ofpassport. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1[st]respondent has invited a report as to his antecedents fromthe 2[nd] respondent. This writ petition is filed for a writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the 1[st] respondent innot renewing the passport on the basis of a report ofantecedents received from the 2[nd] respondent and for adirection to the 1[st] respondent to renew the passport.

The 1[st] respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application forrenewal of passport but according to the provisions of thePassport Act, an application for renewal cannot beentertained, if the passport is in a damaged condition. The only alternative is said to be to apply for issuance ofduplicate passport. According to the 1[st] respondent, theprocess of issuance of duplicate passport involvesverification of antecedents and accordingly the report wasinvited from the 2[nd] respondent. It is stated that in hisreport, the 2[nd] respondent referred to the various casespending against the petitioner and ultimatelyrecommended for rejection of the application for duplicatepassport.The 2[nd] respondent also filed a counter affidavitreferring to the various cases in which the petitionerfigures as an accused and submission of a reportrecommending the rejection of application. Across theBar, it is stated that the order of rejection has since beencommunicated to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedcounsel for the1[st]respondent and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Home.

The petitioner does not dispute that the passportthat was issued to him in the year 2004 is in a damagedcondition. The procedure prescribed under the PassportAct mandates that if a passport is damaged, renewalthereof is not permissible and application for issuance ofduplicate thereof must be filed. The verification of antecedents which is undertaken at the time of issuanceof passport is required to be repeated. The application forissuance of duplicate is filed. It is in this background thatthe report from the 2[nd] respondent was invited by the 1[st]respondent. The petitioner is also aware of the same andmade extensive reference to that exercise in the affidavitfiled in the writ petition.

The 1[st] respondent has chosen the course ofinviting a report from the 2[nd] respondent by placingreliance upon the provisions of the Passport Act. Thepetitioner is not able to demonstrate as to how the courseadopted by the 1[st] respondent is defective or unlawful. Atany ate, a substantial development has taken placeduring the pendency of the writ petition. The 1[st]respondent passed an order rejecting the application ofthe petitioner and stating the reasons therefor. If thepetitioner feels aggrieved by that order, he has to file aseparate writ petition.

Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner places relianceupon the judgments rendered by the Punjab and HaryanaCourt in Ranjit Bajaj vs. Regnl. Passport Authority[[1]]and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Anwar-ul-Haqvs. Union of India[[2]]. The ratio laid in those decisions isthat an adverse report obtained and verification of theantecedents or mere pendency of criminal cases does notdisentitle a citizen of his right to be issued a passport. Anoccasion for this Court to deal with the merit of thatsubmission would arise, if only the order of rejection ischallenged.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the order of rejection. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.)

Date: 31.12.2009JSUTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

Writ Petition No.20272 of 2009

JSU

Date:31.12.2009

[1]AIR 2004 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 327

[2]AIR 2008 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 35