Kerala High Court
Abdul Kader C.H vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.27253 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL KADER C.H,AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN, CHALILAKATH HOUSE, TIRURKAD P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 321
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.M.ANUROOP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI-110 004
2 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 006
R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT. KRISHNA, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27253 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021
The writ petition challenges Ext.P4 communication dated
11.08.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent. A direction is also sought
against the 2nd respondent to correct the personal particulars of the
petitioner in his passport.
2. Perusal of Ext.P4 shows that it is a letter dated
11.08.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P4
refers to the application of the petitioner seeking re-issue of his
passport with change in personal particulars and directed the
petitioner to report in person along with the desired documents on
26.08.2020. It was also mentioned in the letter that, if the petitioner
fails to appear as directed, it would be presumed that the petitioner
had nothing to offer as an explanation and the same may result in
closure of the application submitted by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the
date specified in Ext.P4, even though petitioner had appeared in
person, the 2nd respondent had not heard the petitioner and instead,
closed the file as specified in Ext.P4.
4. Aforesaid submission is disputed by the learned Assistant
Solicitor General of India, who submits on instructions that there
was no appearance on 26.08.2020 and consequently, as specified in
Ext.P4, the file relating to the application of the petitioner was
closed on 10.09.2020.
5. Since the petitioner is only seeking an opportunity to
appear and to explain in person, I am of the view that such an
opportunity ought to be given. Otherwise, it will be too harsh on the
petitioner to close an application merely for failure to appear on the
first day itself, especially during the prevailing pandemic times.
6. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General of
India, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to
appear before the 2nd respondent on any day during working hours
between 02.02.2021 and 05.02.2021 along with all the requisite
documents as sought for by the 2nd respondent. If the petitioner
appears before the 2nd respondent as directed above, the 2nd
respondent shall after granting an opportunity of hearing take a
decision on Ext.P2 application in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT BEARING NO.
M2306300.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC BOOK
OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION
AND RE ISSUE OF PASSPORT ALONG WITH THE
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.02.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
11.08.2020 RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
