Chattisgarh High Court
Farida Mohsin Ali vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 436 of 2021
Farida Mohsin Ali, Wife of Mohsin Ali Vanak, aged about 75 years, R/o
Medical Complex, Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India, Through Secretary (PSP), Ministry of External Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, PSP
Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 27, Patiala House, Tilak
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
3. Passport Officer, Raipur Regional Passport Office Raipur, 1 st Floor,
Commercial Complex, Sector-4, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Passport Officer, Lucknow Regional Passport Office Lucknow, Passport
Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) -
226010.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
13.12.2021
Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for
the respondents.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3578 of 2021, the operative
portion of which reads as under:
"4. Primary reading of the documents which are attached
with this petition would show that the petitioner is in
possession of the Voter Identity Card, Aadhar Card bearing
No. 6576 5222 1704 and Pan card. The documents further
shows that passport was also issued to the petitioner on
the earlier occasion right from 1975 which was renewed
from time to time. Considering the age of the petitioner as
she is 75 years of age and if consideration of issuance of
passport is on hold for considerable period then it may
cause irreparable injury to the petitioner in the backdrop of
the facts. Considering the same, the respondents are
directed to consider the application for reissuance of the
passport as per the mandate and requirement of Passport
Rules, 1980 and the J.S. (CPV), PSP Division New Delhi is
directed to look into the matter to issue necessary direction
forthwith within a period of 2 weeks from today for
reissuance of the passport to the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of the
aforesaid order, a letter dated 11.11.2021 was issued by the Regional Passport
Officer, Raipur seeking clarifications with regard to issuance of passport
facilities alleging suppression of material information. It is submitted by her that
there is no suppression of material information and the appellant was granted
passport long back on 25.03.1975 and the same was renewed on six
occasions.
4. It is further submitted that the present passport is valid up to 12.02.2022
and only because all the pages of the passport have been exhausted because
of travels abroad, the necessity had arisen for issuance of a fresh passport as
the appellant intends to travel to Bangladesh.
5. Having regard to the fact that the learned Single Judge has directed the
respondents to decide the issue within a period of two weeks, we are of the
opinion that no interference is called for with regard to the aforesaid order in
this appeal.
6. Ms. Siddiqui submits that the appellant would respond to the letter dated
11.11.20221 within a period of seven days from today.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ appeal is disposed of providing that
within a period of two weeks from the date of response to the letter dated
11.11.2021, the respondents will consider the application in terms of the order
of the learned Single Judge.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
