IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.15018/2012(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri Kumar V. Jahgirdar S/o. Sri.M.N. Venkata Subban Aged about 50 years R/o.No.78 Osborne Road Bangalore-560 042.
(By Sri. S. Mahesh for Mahesh and Co., Advocate) AND:
1. The Secretary Ministry of External Affairs Government of India New Delhi.
2. Regional Passport Officer 80 feet road, 8th Block Koramangala Bangalore-560 095.
... Petitioner ... Respondents (By Sri. S.R. Dodawad, CGC for R1 and R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to initiate appropriate action based on the complaint of the petitioner vide Annx-B and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The Petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriate action based on the complaint of the petitioner as per Annexure – G and to direct the respondents not to destroy the material evidence i.e., the applications and all other related documents submitted for the purpose of renewal of passport of the petitioner’s daughter Kum. Aaruni Kumar Jahagirdar.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was married to Smt. Chethana Ramtheertha in the year 1986 and in the year 1999, divorce was effected between the petitioner and Smt. Chethana Ramtheertha. On 05.01.2012, respondent No.2 informed the Bharathinagar Police Station that as per Passport Rules, both the parents of the minor should sign form Annexure – H. On 10.01.2012, petitioner made a complaint to respondent No.2 against Sri. Anil Kumble and Smt. Chetana Kumble. On 19.01.2012, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to Smt. Chetana Kumble. Respondent No.2 has replied through Right to Information Act. On 28.02.2012, respondent No.2 informed that Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi has directed to provide all necessary assistance to the concerned authorities for investigation. On 15.03.2012, the reply was given by respondents as sought by the petitioner. Petitioner again issued a reminder to respondent No.2 on 29.03.2012. Ultimately, petitioner made a complaint on 10.01.2012 stating that compliant of impersonation, fraud and forgery against Anil Kumble and Chetana Kumble and subsequently specifically requested in the prayer to take necessary action against my ex-wife Chethana Kumble and her present husband Anil Kumble for dishonestly and fraudulently applying the minor passport through impersonation, furnishing false information, forgery and by way of cheating passport authorities which are offences under the provisions of the Passport Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that in spite of the said complaint made, the Authorities have not taken any action. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for relief sought for.
3. In response to the complaint, the respondents have filed objections denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that the respondents already issued show cause notice to Smt. Chetana Kumble and on the basis of the reply dated 17.01.2012 filed by her, her daughter’s passport has been revoked on 17.04.2012.
4. It is further contended that the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi vide its RPO Form SO (PV.1) dated 12.07.2012 has stated that Shri Anil Kumble signed form Annexure – H of the passport application of his step daughter as father. The extent provisions of Passport Rules do not prohibit a step father to sign Annexure – H in the column of father. Therefore, Shri. Anil Kumble has not done any offence by signing the Annexure – H in the column of father. The copy disclosing the said facts is produced as per Annexure – R7.
5. It is further stated that Anil Kumble has not signed as ‘Kumar V. Jahgirdar’ but put his own signature in Annexure – H. That, along with the applications Smt. Chetana Kumble had enclosed a copy of the order passed by the lower Court granting permission to take the minor daughter Ms. Aaruni out of the country on vacation and the relief sought by the petitioner for permanent custody of the child was summarily rejected and permission granted to return the passport to Smt. Chetanan Kumble. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that considering the gravity of the offences committed by Sri. Anil Kumble and Smt.Chetana Kumble, the respondents ought initiated necessary action and also criminal prosecution. However for the reasons best known to them, the respondents have not discharged their duty. It is further contended that as seen from Annexure – E which is the format of passport authorities meant for the declarations to be made by the father and the mother of the minor child, the name of the petitioner is shown as the father of the minor daughter. However as demonstrated, where the father has to sign, some other person whom the petitioner suspects as Mr. Anil Kumble has signed and as the legal guardian place, some signature has been attested and then struck off. The document is given by the passport authorities under the RTI to the petitioner. From Annexure – E it is clear that someone has impersonated as the petitioner and has attested the signature fraudulently and thus, the offence is complete. This illegal act attracts the provisions of Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and also Section 12 of the Passport Act.
8. He further contended that except issuing notice to the petitioner’s ex-wife Smt. Chetana Kumble, the respondents have not issued any notice to Anil Kumble who had signed in Annexure – H as father. Therefore, sought to allow the writ petition.
9. Sri. S. R. Dodawad, learned CGC sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents and contended that in pursuance of complaint Annexure – G, the respondents have promptly initiated action and issued notice to Smt. Chetana Kumble and she has filed her reply. Subsequently, her child’s passport has been revoked. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner before the Regional Passport Officer, Koramangala that on 10.01.2012, a complaint of impersonation, fraud and forgery is filed against Anil Kumble and Chetana Kumble. It is specifically stated that after examining the document at Annexure – H in the column of declaration of applicant, parent or guardian for the minor child, though his name is mentioned, his ex- wife chetana Kumble and her present husband – Anil Kumble has impersonated his signature as if, he is the father and affixed his signature and also enclosed his passport as supporting document. He further stated that Annexure – 1 is titled as Declaration of father if the passport in case of a minor child. Further in the affidavit, the mother i.e., his Ex-wife has signed on behalf of the father, which is a clear case of fraud and misrepresentation. Though the matter was taken up by filing a compliant to the Bharathinagar Police station for impersonation, fraud and forgery, the jurisdictional police have closed the case. Therefore, he requested the respondent authorities to take necessary action against his ex- wife - chetana Kumble and her present husband - Anil Kumble for dishonestly and fraudulently applying the minor child’s passport through impersonation, furnishing false information, forgery and by way of cheating the respondent authorities, which are offences under the provisions of the Passport Act.
11. On careful perusal of Annexure – H produced in present writ petition dated 19.01.2012 addressed to the petitioner by the Regional Passport Officer has stated that in response to the letter dated 10.01.2012, a show cause notice dated 05.01.2012 issued to the mother of said minor child – Smt. Chetana Kumble for her explanation in the matter. The explanation furnished by her and the case details have now been referred to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi dated 19.01.2012 for Ministry’s instructions for future course of action. As soon as the reply is received from them, necessary action will be taken and conveyed to all the parties concerned. It is also stated at the Bar by the learned CGC that subsequently, passport of the minor child has been revoked.
12. The facts remain that the complaint is made in Annexure – G in specific terms against Chetana Kumble and Anil Kumble, the materials on record clearly depicts that the authorities have issued Show cause notice only to the mother of the minor child and no proceedings are initiated against Anil Kumble though the specific complaint made against him. It clearly indicates that the authorities have not initiated any action in accordance with the complaint made by the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of Passport Act. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
13. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. The respondent - The Regional Passport Officer, Koramangala is directed to consider Annexure – G complaint dated 10.01.2012 against the persons mentioned in the complaint and pass appropriate orders at the earliest in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS