Sanal Soman vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 16595 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          SANAL SOMAN, AGED 30 YEARS,
          S/O.SOMARAJAN, SANAL NIVAS, KAVANADU P.O., MENATHU
          CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM CITY, PIN - 691 003.

          BY ADV. T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)



RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA,
          REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
          CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

    2     PASSPORT OFFICER,
          REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM SNSM BUILDING,
          KARALKADA JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 024.

          BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

                     SRI.JAISANKAR NAIR CGC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020
                                   -2-

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P3 notice issued by the 2nd

respondent, asking him to show cause why his

passport bearing No.K7839427, be not impounded

for the reason of not having disclosed the factum

of a criminal case pending against him.

2. The petitioner says that he had lost his

passport irrecoverably and therefore, that he had

approached the respondent - Passport Officer

through Ext.P2 application, seeking reissue of the

same; but that instead of considering it on its

merits, the said respondent has now issued Ext.P3,

which he asserts has been done without proper

application of mind. The petitioner, therefore,

prays that Ext.P3 be quashed and 2nd respondent -

Passport Officer, be directed to consider Ext.P2,

leading to the reissue of his lost passport. WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020

3. Sri.Jayasankar Nair - learned Central

Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents,

submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge

Ext.P3 in the manner as has been done in this writ

petition because he himself admits that he was

facing a criminal charge, at the instance of his

wife, for offences under Sections 498(A) and

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The

learned Central Government Counsel, therefore,

submitted that the petitioner will have to answer

to Ext.P3 properly and only thereafter, can his

application, namely Ext.P2, be taken into account.

4. In reply, Smt.T.S.Maya - learned counsel

for the petitioner, submitted that the crime

against his client has, in fact, been settled; and

that his wife has withdrawn same, based on an

agreement. She relies on Ext.P6 series documents

in substantiation; but conceded that, on account

of the Covid-19 pandemic scenario, a formal WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020

referral report has not been obtained from the

Police. She, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that

this writ petition be ordered as prayed for.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it

is without doubt that the entire controversy in

this case began when petitioner been made Ext.P2

application for reissue of his passport, which he

says has been lost by him. It is at this stage,

that the 2nd respondent called for a Police

Verification Report, in which, it has been

recorded that a crime has been registered against

the petitioner, thus leading to Ext.P3 notice.

6. However, since the petitioner says that

the criminal case against him has been settled and

that proceedings before the Trial Court has also

virtually been ceased, I deem it appropriate that

he be given an opportunity to approach the 2 nd

respondent appropriately with all relevant

documents, so that the matter can be considered by WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020

the said Authority in terms of law. I record that

this course of action has also been suggested by

the learned Central Government Counsel -

Sri.Jayasankar Nair.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and direct the petitioner to mark

appearance before the 2nd respondent at 11 A.M. on

17.08.2021; on which day, the said Authority will

hear him and examine all documents, which he will

produce before him in support of his assertion

that the criminal case has now been settled or is

in the process of settlement; in which event, said

Authority will issue appropriate orders on Ext.P3

and thereafter on Ext.P2, with respect to his

request for reissue of the passport.

In the event the 2nd respondent finds in favour

of the petitioner, then his passport will be

reissued to him, as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than two weeks thereafter. WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 27279 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27279/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOST CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE S.I. OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION DTD. 16/5/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6/8/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18/8/2020 SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/11/2020 SEND BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.105/2020 OF SHAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT KOLLAM IN CRL.M.C.NO.187/2020 AND THE MEDICATION AGREEMENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOT PRESS MEMO AND THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY PETITIONER'S WIFE TO THE PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM IN OP160/2020 DATED 5/3/2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/11/2020 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE