HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Between :-
WRIT PETITION No.23464 of 2014 09th September, 2014 Malyala Bheemaiah And … Petitioner The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23464 of 2014 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring order of the Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad (respondent No.3) revoking the passport of the petitioner dated 10.07.2012 and consequent order of the Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer, CPV Division, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi (2nd respondent) dated 29.01.2014 putting restrictions for obtaining fresh passport, as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue fresh passport.
It is the case of the petitioner that passport bearing No.K1419908 issued to him was revoked on the ground that false verification certificate was given by him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, vide order dated 29.01.2014, refused to revoke the passport and upheld the decision of the Regional Passport Officer placing the petitioner’s name in prior approval category for a period of six months from the date of the said order. However, it was further ordered that since criminal case is pending against the appellant, passport facilities can only be restored after the appellant acquitted in the criminal case. This writ petition is instituted challenging the said proceedings.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that six months’ period, as stipulated in the order of appellate authority, dated 29.01.2014, has expired and therefore it is no more necessary to keep the petitioner in the prior approval category list. It is also contended that no crime is registered against the petitioner and therefore the question of petitioner being acquitted in criminal case would not arise and therefore the passport ought to have been revoked as per the orders of the appellate authority and non-revoking the passport is illegal.
On instructions, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that in the meantime, the Regional Passport Officer has received a communication from the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District to the effect that in the year 2011 petitioner obtained a passport in the name of Malyala Bheema Reddy and he has also gone abroad and returned back, and therefore the subsequent passport obtained by him amounts to a second passport by same person with different name. Having regard to the said information received by the Regional Passport Officer, a show cause notice, dated 03.09.2014, was communicated to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain on the allegations leveled against him. A copy of the said show cause notice was produced on the last date of hearing. Copy was also served on the counsel for the petitioner. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice dated 03.09.2014 was not served on the petitioner. In the facts of this case, since a doubt is expressed by the Regional Passport Officer that petitioner is alleged to have obtained two passports, which is not punishable under the Passport Act and a show cause notice is caused on him, a copy of which is served on the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner shall respond to said show cause notice by filing a detailed explanation with supporting documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when such an explanation is received, the Regional Passport Officer shall consider such explanation and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks thereafter. If the petitioner satisfies the 3rd respondent the genuinity of the passport bearing No.K-1419908 issued to him on 10.07.2012 and that he is not the same person who was granted passport in the year 2011 as alleged, the further action, as mandated by the appellate authority order dated 29.01.2014, shall be taken without further delay. The petitioner is also entitled to place before the 3rd respondent the information regarding the claim of the petitioner that no crime is registered against him and therefore the question of he being acquitted in the criminal case would not arise.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P. NAVEEN RAO, J 09th September, 2014
siva
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23464 of 2014 09th September, 2014
siva