The Regional Passport Office vs Karan Khurmi

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 07.08.2012 in terms whereof a direction was issued

against the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh to issue passport to the respondent subject to his fulfillment of other conditions without legitimacy

of adoption being taken as a valid ground to deny the passport. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench

of this Court in CWP No. 20710 of 2006 titled as Gagandeep Singh and another Vs Union of India and others decided on 25.01.2008. The Full

Bench examined the larger question in the context of the impugned order dated 20.04.2006 in terms whereof the application furnished by the

applicant for passport was refused on account of alleged violation of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act) qua the adoption, the applicant being a minor. The decision was, thus, on account of the parentage of the applicant not

being rightly depicted in the application and, thus, wrong information had been furnished qua that issue. The Full Bench answered the reference by

concluding that the passport authority can refuse the very consideration of the claim for passport to an applicant whose application form is not valid

on account of the fact that it furnishes incorrect information or because material information has been suppressed or if mandatory provisions of the

Passport Rules have not been adhered to. This, of course, would not preclude the applicant from filing a fresh application containing the requisite

correct information. Apart from the general principles, the facts of that case were also examined instead of remitting the matter back to the Division

Bench.

In the aforesaid context, the mandate of Section 16 of the said Act was examined which raises a presumption qua a registered document

purporting to record an adoption until and unless it is disproved. The adoption deed had not been challenged. However, the Full Bench found that

since the other conditions for valid adoption, as enunciated u/s 11 of the said Act, were not fulfilled and this read with the provisions of Section 5

making an adoption void in such eventuality, the legal presumption u/s 16 of the said Act stood repudiated.

In the present case, the respondent/minor claims to be an adopted son of Pawan Kumar, in pursuance to an adoption made on 24.02.2009.

The adoptive parents already have one son and one daughter at the time of adoption. In terms of Section 11(i) of the said Act, in case of an

adoption of a son, the adoptive parents must not have a Hindu son, son''s son or son''s son''s son living at the time of adoption. Thus, the similar

situation arises in the present case, where there is a bar to the nature of adoption carried out and, thus, the same cannot be categorized as a valid

adoption.

The result of the aforesaid is that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside and the appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear

their own costs. Needless to say that nothing precludes the respondent from making a fresh application which would be considered on merits.