This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order in VII/402/App-98/2013 dated 25.04.2014 passed by the first respondent and seeking for a consequential direction to the respondents to return the petitioner's passport.
2.The petitioner is residing in the Kanyakumari District and presently, he is working as Convenor of People's Movement against Nuclear Energy (PMANE). He has been actively involved in protest against the Kundankulam Nuclear Power Plant Project. According to the petitioner, the Government of Tamil Nadu have registered several criminal cases against him and other members of People's Movement for their participation in the protest and agitation by way of demonstration, fast, hoisting of block flag, picketing etc.
3.According to the petitioner, these form of agitations are well within the framework of the Constitution and the same cannot be construed as illegal activity or activity against the State. The Government of Tamil Nadu have issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.758, Home (Courts-IV) Department, dated 09.10.2014, in which 248 cases registered against the members of People's Movement against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), came to be withdrawn. This Government Order issued purported to be in compliance with the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The petitioner was involved in all such cases along with several other people, who are involved in the movement. According to the petitioner, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 03.05.2013 impounding the passport of the petitioner without giving him proper opportunity to explain his defence. On his passport being impounded by the second respondent, the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal on 08.06.2013, in which, he set out in detail that no opportunity was afforded to him before impounding his passport and no reasons were also assigned. It appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the first respondent by issuing the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2014.
4.According to the petitioner, there are only two cases pending against him in view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.758, dated 09.10.2014, through which 248 cases registered came to be withdrawn. Based on which, the impound of the passport was in respect of C.C.Nos.227 and 228 of 2012 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief as stated supra.
5.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the pendency of criminal cases, based on which, the petitioner's passport was impounded, had also been withdrawn through above said Government Order, which entries were found in S.Nos.154 and 187, which is enclosed along with the said Government Order. In view of the above withdrawal of the criminal cases pending against the petitioner, the original revocation of the passport and impounding of the same needs to be reviewed.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondents in not revoking the order of impounding the passport would result in negation of fundamental rights of the petitioner as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Smt.Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India reported in 1978(1) SCC 248. According to the learned counsel, there cannot be any valid justification for not releasing the passport even after the criminals cases, which filed against the petitioner, were withdrawn.
7.Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents resisting the claim of the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the respondents would reiterate the averments contained in the counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the petitioner has not submitted relevant documents to prove that he was acquitted in all criminal cases pending against him before court of law. The petitioner instead of approaching the office of the respondents has rushed to this Court seeking a direction for restoration of passport facility.
8.Heard the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents, perused the pleadings and materials on record.
9.The fact that the Government itself by the above said G.O. thought fit not to seriously pursue the cases pending against the petitioner and others and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to have passport issued to him. Moreover, apart from the criminal cases cited, which were withdrawn by the above said G.O., what stand in the way between the respondents and the petitioner in the matter of issue of passport is not properly explained in the counter affidavit.
10.In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents should be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for issuance of passport. In such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to submit necessary application to the respondents authority for issuance of passport, explaining his position in view of the changed circumstances as averred in the writ petition and as indicated above and the competent authority, namely the second respondent shall consider the application to be submitted by the petitioner and issue passport, after obtaining necessary report from the police and after imposing whatever reasonable conditions as may be required in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is directed to submit his application within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the respondents are directed to consider his application in the light of the above observations and pass orders within a period of four weeks, thereafter.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer, O/o the Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer, CPV Division, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi ? 110 001.
2.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Madurai..