Kerala High Court
Haris Padavingal Abu vs The Regional Passport Officer on 30 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6552 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
HARIS PADAVINGAL ABU
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.PADAVINGAL KUNJUMUHAMMED ABU,
PADAVINGAL HOUSE,
KALVATHY, FORT KOCHI P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJU S.NAIR
SRI.A.V.SAJAN
SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR
SMT.POOJA SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O.,COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 036.
2 THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
BY ADV.JAISANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
W.P.(C) No.6552/21 -:2:-
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.09.2021, THE COURT ON 30.09.2021 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6552/21 -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6552 of 2021
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was the holder of an Indian passport bearing
No.J1494880 which was valid till 22.12.2020. After the expiry of the
said passport, he applied for renewal. However, by Ext.P7 letter, the
passport issuing authority rejected the application, stating that the
response of the petitioner to the objection letter sent by the passport
office was not satisfactory. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P7 in this
writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents in
which the Regional Passport Officer, Cochin has stated that the
petitioner was the holder of a passport originally issued on
14.03.2005 with the number F2167178. However, on 27.03.2008
when the petitioner reached Cochin International Airport, the
immigration authorities seized the said passport on noticing
tampering with the date of birth. Thereafter, petitioner remitted
Rs.5,000/- as penalty and he was issued with a duplicate passport on
23.12.2010 with the number J1494880, after cancelling the tampered
passport. The respondents however stated that while the application
for renewal of the duplicate passport was being processed, they
came to know that the petitioner had obtained another passport
dated 03.12.2005 from Chennai bearing passport No.F5647718, with
a different date of birth, place of birth and even a different address.
The statement also mentions that petitioner had suppressed his first
passport F2167178 while obtaining another passport from Chennai
and that he was thus holding two valid passports at the same point of
time - one issued from Cochin and the other from Chennai. On
realising that the petitioner was holding two passports, a show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation, to which
petitioner replied, blaming his father for the fault and stated that the
application for the second passport was filed without his knowledge.
It was also stated by the respondents that as per the Government's
instructions, in cases of double passport, the officer has to initiate a
discreet enquiry by the police authorities and register an FIR in the
light of the Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2124 of 2021 dated
17.02.2021, since the passport issuing authority has no power to
impose a penalty other than to either issue a fresh passport or
refuse/reject or impound/revoke or restrict the validity of the passport,
as per Passports Act, 1967. It is in such circumstances that the
passport issuing authority on finding that the explanation offered by
the petitioner was not satisfactory, refused the passport.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Saju
S.Nair learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Adv.P.Vijayakumar
as well as learned Central Government Counsel Adv.Jaisankar
V.Nair.
4. It is noticed from the statement filed before this Court by the
respondents that petitioner was holding two different passports at the
same time, both issued within a span of nine months. The first
passport bearing No.F2167178 dated 14.03.2005 and the second
passport bearing No.F5647718 dated 03.12.2005 issued from
Chennai. These facts are not borne out from the order impugned but
only from the statement filed before this Court.
5. It is the settled proposition of law that when reasons have
not been stated in an order that is impugned, the reasons cannot be
added or explained through an affidavit, much less through a
statement. A perusal of Ext.P7 letter shows that it is a non-speaking
order. The only reason stated is that the "explanation is not
satisfactory". Why was the explanation not satisfactory and what
were the reasons due to which the authority came to the conclusion
that the explanation offered by petitioner was not satisfactory, are not
discernible from the order impugned. In such circumstances, Ext.P7
is liable to be set aside solely for the reason that it is a non-speaking
order.
6. Another facet of Ext.P7 is that it is not an order but only a
letter communicating that the petitioner's application has been
refused. Every order refusing an application for issuance of a
passport gives rise to a statutory right upon the applicant to
challenge the same. Hence the order rejecting the application for
issuance of a passport must have the trappings of an order and not
merely as a letter. However since the intent, purport and intention
behind Ext.P7 was as an order rejecting the application of the
petitioner, I deem it appropriate to treat Ext.P7 as an order and set
aside the same, so as to render justice to the parties.
7. In this context it is worthwhile to observe that pendency of a
crime is not a ground to deny the fundamental right of a person to
travel abroad. However, the right is not absolute even. A balance has
been struck through the notification issued in GSR 570(E) dtd 25-08-
1993, which has been approved by this Court in Asok Kumar v.
State of Kerala (2009) 2 KLT 712. Holding of two passports at the
same even if it gives rise to a criminal proceeding, the same by itself
may not manifest as a reason for outright denial for issuing a fresh
passport, in the absence of other convincing reasons. Anyway these
are matters for the passport issuing authority to decide.
8. Accordingly, while setting aside Ext.P7, I direct the first
respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner for issuance
of a renewed passport, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. If the petitioner wishes to add any further explanation, he
shall submit the same within 10 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The decision so taken by the 1 st respondent
as directed above, shall be communicated to the petitioner without
delay.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6552/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE
PETITIONER BEARING NO.J1494880 ISSUED ON
23/12/2010.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED
17/12/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY
THE PETITIONER FROM THE FORT KOCHI
POLICE STATION DATED 26/12/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
WP(C) NO.2124/2021 DATED 17/02/2021.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS DATED 22/02/2021.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
24/02/2021.
EXHIBIT P6(a) TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED
25/02/2021.
