AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
Both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner. In W.P(MD)No.1547 of 2012, the petitioner challenged the order dated 03.01.2012 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, stating that since the petitioner involved in as many as six criminal cases, the grant of passport facilities was not recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District. They also referred to the fact that the petitioner''s passport application was sent for verification by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, for verifying the character and antecedents. The second respondent - the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District had sent an adverse report stating that the petitioner had the following cases:
Cr.No.31/2011 under sec. 143, 188 and 341 of Thiruchendur Police Station,
Cr.No.67/2011 under sec. 147, 148, 307, 120(b), 436 of Arumughaneri Police Station,
Cr.No.185/2011 under sec. 147, 120(b) u/s 5 of Explosive Substances Act, Arumughaneri Police Station,
Cr.No.187/2011 under sec. 147, 120(b) u/s 5 of Explosive Substances Act, Arumughaneri Police Station,
Cr.No.281/2011 under sec.147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 120(b) of T.N.P.(P.D.L.) Act, Kulasakherapattinam Police Station,
Cr.No.283/2011 under sec. 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 120(b) of T.N.P.(P.D.L.) Act, Kulasakherapattinam Police Station.
pending against him before various police stations.
Challenging the said communication, W.P(MD)No.1547 of 2012 came to be filed. When the matter came up on 08.08.2012, this Court admitted the writ petition and directed the respondents to file the counter affidavit. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner realising that his passport has been impounded u/s 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, vide order dated 01.06.2009, had chosen to challenge the earlier order after the period of three years in W.P(MD)No.10422 of 2012. In that writ petition, while ordering notice regarding admission, interim order of stay was granted.
It is not clear as to how an order which was passed in the year 2009, if it is stayed, the petitioner will have the benefit of passport and notwithstanding the same, an interim order was granted as the petitioner filed M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012. Aggrieved by the grant of interim order, the Regional Passport Officer has filed an application in M.P(MD)No.3 of 2012 seeking to vacate the interim order together with the supporting counter dated 08.08.2012. The counter affidavit of the second respondent dated 30.07.2012 has also been filed.
Heard the arguments of Mr.D.Shanmugarajasethupathy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions, Mr.S.Sukumaran, Learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.M.Alaguthevan, learned Special Government Pleader for the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.1547 of 2012, and Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the first respondent and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.10422 of 2012.
It is the stand of the first respondent that the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice on 26.09.2008 stating that he has obtained the passport on the basis of the application dated 11.06.2008 and in the said application, the petitioner suppressed the involvement in the criminal case in Cr.No.124 of 2006 on the file of Meignanapuram Police Station. Therefore, he was directed to surrender his passport and also asked to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken. Obviously, the petitioner did not give any reply to the said show cause notice and further notice was also issued on 20.04.2009 for the very same reason. Since the show cause notice dated 26.09.2008 and 20.04.2009 were not replied, a final order was passed impounding the petitioner''s passport in terms of Section 10(3)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. Subsequent to the said order, the petitioner sent a representation dated 07.12.2011 stating that he had surrendered the passport for police verification on 14.02.2011 and more than ten months have lapsed since the surrender of the passport and he has not been provided with any information about the return of the passport and still he was kept under the dark. In response to the said communication, the Regional Passport Officer had issued the second impugned order dated 03.01.2012 by stating that since there was an adverse report received from the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, the grant of passport was not recommended.
The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notices were vague by merely stating that they have not sent any further communication in terms of the show cause notices. It is also the case of the petitioner that if they referred to the case in Cr.No.124 of 2006 registered at Meignanapuram Police Station, the said case was tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No. 2, Thoothukudi, in S.C.No.181 of 2007 and the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 26.02.2008. Therefore, the factual basis for the issuance of the show cause notice itself was not valid and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has come to the Court after three years, both the show cause notices and the final order must go. The fact that subsequently criminal cases were registered, is not a ground for earlier impounding to be justified.
In the counter affidavit filed in support of the stand of the first respondent, it was stated that the petitioner applied for a passport under Tatkal scheme on 11.06.2008 and he was issued with a passport on the basis of the post police verification report and the report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District and he informed that a criminal case in Cr.No.124 of 2006 was pending.
It is further stated by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case, but as against the acquittal, the Government has preferred the appeal. Hence, his case was not recommended for passport. Therefore, the show cause notice was issued on 26.09.2008, but in the said show cause notice, the reason given was the pending criminal case, whereas admittedly, even as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 26.02.2008. Therefore, either on the date of application of the passport or on the date of police verification, there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner. On the other hand, even in the criminal case registered, he has been acquitted. The details regarding the appeal has also not been furnished. In such a case, the impugned show cause notice dated 26.09.2008 itself is without basis.
Insofar as there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner, even after the post police verification, there is no justification for the first respondent to give a show cause notice asking the petitioner as to why his passport should not be cancelled, but nothing prevented the petitioner from informing the actual position that there was no criminal case pending, but without basis. Even in the final order subsequent to the second show cause notice, the same reason was reiterated. Therefore, there is no factual basis for impounding the petitioner''s passport on the relevant date namely 01.06.2009. Therefore, W.P.(MD)No. 10422 of 2012 is liable to be succeeded and the same is allowed and consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions in W.P(MD)No.10422 of 2012 are closed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.06.2009 stands set aside, but that will not end the case herein. The petitioner''s further representation to the authorities, had invited the second impugned order stating that the petitioner cannot be granted the passport in the light of the subsequent criminal case registered against the petitioner as noted above. It is entirely different matter and the authority will decide the same as it is a subsequent development. Insofar as the Regional Passport authority being the delegate under the Passports Act, 1967, is entitled to pass appropriate orders in terms of Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967. Accordingly, this Court remand the matter to the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, to pass fresh orders. While doing so, a fresh show cause notice may be issued to the petitioner giving the particulars of the criminal cases pending. In doing so, they should strictly abide by Section 10 of the Passports Act and give clear reason instead of using mechanical format and nothing prevented them in sending a fair copy instead of a format order which gives rise to several confusions and in many times, the applicant would take advantage of the mechanical process. Accordingly, W.P.(MD)No.1547 of 2012 is disposed of, with a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, to pass fresh orders after giving due notice to the petitioner by issuing a fresh show cause notice as per law. There shall be no order as to costs in both the writ petitions.