Deepak Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7545 Ori

Orissa High Court

Deepak Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ... on 25 April, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     W.P.(C). No. 14655 of 2014


      (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
      of India)

                                ---------------
      Deepak Kumar Nayak                     ...... Petitioner

                                   -Versus-

      Union of India & Others     .... Opposite Parties
      _______________________________________________________

        For Petitioner    : Mr. R.N.Acharya, Advocate,

         For Opp. Party : Mr. D.R.Bhokta,
                          Senior Panel Counsel for Union of
                          India

      _______________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                              JUDGMENT

25th April, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

following prayer;

The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule NISI calling upon

the opposite parties to show-cause as to why:

(i) the imposition of fine amount of AED 6170 equivalent with Indian currency Rs. 1,20,000/-

approximately by the Arrival Supervisory of Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal No. 2 shall not be quashed;

(ii) the opposite parties shall not be directed to issue the Visa which was affixed with the old passport of the petitioner of the year 2009 which was cancelled by the opposite party no.4 on dated 12.05.2014.

(iii) The opposite parties shall not be directed to take necessary arrangement to allow the petitioner to move United Arab Emirates (Dubai) without any problem with connivance of the Airport of United Arab Emirates (Dubai);

(iv) the opposite parties shall not be directed to pay necessary compensation to the petitioner due to fault of the opposite party No.4 in respect of issuance of unsigned Passport of the Passport officer in the year 2009;

if the opposite parties fail to show-cause insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute;

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper;

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was

issued with passport bearing No. H6073986 on

03.07.2009 which was valid till 02.07.2019. He being a

Marble Operator applied for a job as Marble

Technician/Operator in M/s RAK ceramics in Dubai in

the year 2010. Having been selected, he was asked to

join in Dubai. A resident card issued by the

Government of RAS AL-Khaimah was issued in his

favour bearing No. 30009634 as also resident identity

card by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). After obtaining

Visa from UAE (Dubai) the petitioner attached the same

to his passport certificate and proceeded to Dubai. He

returned to attend to his ailing parents being granted

leave from 25.04.2014 to 25.05.2014 and pre-booked a

to-and-fro ticket from Dubai to Delhi and Delhi to

Bhubaneswar on 25.04.2014 and return ticket on

25.05.2014 from Bhubaneswar to Delhi and Delhi to

Dubai. On arrival at the entry gate international airport

terminal No. 3 on 25.04.2014, the immigration authority

verified his passport and found that the same did not

contain the signature of the Passport Officer though his

seal has been affixed. They instructed him to obtain the

signature of the Passport Officer before returning to

Dubai. The petitioner went to the office of the Passport

Officer on 12.05.2014 and requested for endorsement of

the signature but by then the concerned Passport Officer

had been transferred to a different place. Under such

circumstances, the Passport was cancelled and a new

Passport bearing No. L8455236 was issued in his favour

with validity from 12.05.2014 to 11.05.2024. After

expiry of his leave, the petitioner went to Delhi for

boarding his return flight on 25.05.2014 but the

authorities at the airport did not allow him to move on

the ground that the Visa issued by the UAE was not

affixed to his passport. Therefore, the petitioner

cancelled his air ticket and returned to Odisha. On

28.05.2014, the petitioner went to the office of Passport

Officer and demanded the old passport wherein the Visa

was affixed. The Passport Officer did not accede to such

request. However, he was issued with a certificate

stating the fact of cancellation of the earlier certificate.

The petitioner decided to proceed to Dubai on

26.06.2014 and went to Delhi from where he boarded

the flight to Dubai. On the same day, he reached Dubai

at about 10 P.M. but he was not allowed to go outside

the airport for want of Visa along with his new passport.

He was detained as a prisoner till 30.06.2014 in a room

without proper food and rest. On 30.06.2014, the

Airport Authorities deported the petitioner to Delhi after

imposing a fine of Rs. 6170 AED equivalent to Rs.

1,20,000/- and seized the passport for non-payment of

the fine. The petitioner returned to New Delhi where the

Immigration Officer imposed the fine and seized the

passport on the condition that the same shall be

released on payment of fine. On such facts, the

petitioner contends that it is entirely due to the

negligence of the Passport Officer in not signing the

passport that he had to face such misery including loss

of his service at Dubai. All the problems arose because

of the inability of the Passport Officer to provide the Visa

attached to the original passport which was cancelled.

3. The stand taken of the Opposite Party authorities is

that the passport originally issued in favour of the

petitioner was dispatched to him inadvertently without

the signature of B.K. Laskar, the then Passport Officer.

The petitioner never having brought such discrepancy to

the notice of the Passport Officer by following the

instructions given on the back cover of the passport

dispatch envelope, no action could be taken.

Nevertheless, the petitioner got employment in the UAE

and on his return, the Immigration Authority detected

the discrepancy and directed him to obtain the

signature on the passport. His application for reissue

was allowed without any fee and new passport was

issued after cancelling the earlier one. Since the

petitioner did not have any Visa, he was naturally not

permitted to enter into Dubai, which is entirely his

mistake. He should have approached the authority for

obtaining Visa. The inadvertent mistake committed by

the Passport Officer in not signing the passport while

issuing the same was duly rectified by cancelling the

same and reissuing a new passport. It was therefore,

incumbent on the petitioner to approach the visa issuing

authority for getting a valid Visa. Instead, he decided to

proceed to Dubai without Visa, for which he was denied

entry and imposed with fine.

4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that the

entire problem arose because of negligence of the

Passport Issuing Officer which resulted in loss of his

employment, detention in custody at UAE airport for five

days, unnecessary expenses of booking air ticket from

Bhubaneswar to UAE, imposition of fine and mental

agony etc.

5. Heard Mr. R.N.Acharya, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. D.R.Bhokta, learned Senior Panel

Counsel for the Union of India.

6. Mr. Acharya would argue that the very fact that the

authorities admit to have issued the earlier passport

without signature of the Passport Officer implies that

they are at fault in the first place. The petitioner's Visa

was attached to the original passport which he returned

to the Passport Officer on his return to Bhubaneswar for

signature of the Passport Officer. The Passport

Authorities however, destroyed the passport along with

the Visa. As a result, the petitioner was detained at

Dubai airport and slapped with a substantial fine. Since

the mistake is primarily that of the Passport Authority,

the imposition of fine is entirely unlawful and

unjustified for which the petitioner ought to be

compensated appropriately.

7. Mr. Bhokta, learned Senior Panel Counsel would

argue that even though the original passport was issued

without signature of the Passport Officer, the petitioner

utilizing the same had proceeded to Dubai and in fact

resided there for more than 3 years. It is only on his

return that the discrepancy could be detected by the

Immigration Officer at the airport in New Delhi. He was

advised to obtain signature of the Passport Officer for

which, he approached the office at Bhubaneswar but by

then the Passport Officer who had issued the passport

had been transferred. Under such circumstances, steps

were taken to reissue the passport without charging any

fee from the petitioner. Since as per law a person cannot

possess two passports, the original passport was

cancelled upon issue of the new passport. The

petitioner's claim that the Visa was attached to the

passport is not correct. Nevertheless, he could not have

travelled to Dubai without first obtaining a Visa. Since

he chose to do so, he had to face the consequences for

which the Passport Authority cannot be blamed in any

manner.

8. From the facts narrated, it is seen that admittedly,

the petitioner was issued with a passport in the year

2009 which was valid till 2019. He also claims to have

obtained a Visa from the concerned authorities of the

United Arab Emirates, (UAE) (Dubai) due to which he

served in Dubai for more than 3 years. The defect in his

passport, that is, absence of signature of the Passport

Officer was somehow not detected at that time and was

only detected upon his return. On approach by the

petitioner, the authorities rightly cancelled the passport

and reissued a new passport. Therefore, the discrepancy

in the passport was duly rectified though belatedly. The

petitioner cannot be said to have faced any problem

whatsoever because of the above discrepancy in his

passport. The petitioner claims that the Visa issued by

the UAE was attached to his original passport which,

came to be destroyed by the Passport Authority upon

reissue of a new passport. The petitioner has sworn

affidavit in this regard before the Executive Magistrate,

Bhubaneswar, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-5

to the writ application. This stand of the petitioner is not

believable because Visa is a separate document issued

by a separate authority and is not required to be affixed

or attached to the passport. Even assuming that the

Visa was so attached, he could have retained the same

while handing over the passport to the Passport Officer.

Even otherwise, if for some reason, the attached Visa

was destroyed along with the original passport, the

petitioner could have applied for a fresh visa instead of

attempting to travel without Visa. The argument that the

petitioner being an uneducated person was not aware of

the consequences can be considered only to be rejected

for the reason that the petitioner was not a first-time

traveler to Dubai but as already stated, he had travelled

to Dubai and resided there for more than 3 years. It can

be reasonably presumed that he must have been aware

of the minimum requirements of international travel.

Having travelled without Visa, he was rightly denied

entry into that country by the concerned authorities.

The authorities at Dubai Airport imposed fine on him for

flying without Visa. From what has been narrated

before, the Passport Authorities cannot be blamed for

the same. The petitioner has mixed up two different

incidents and attempted to project them as one. To

elaborate, the first incident concerns issue of a defective

passport, which is obviously the fault of the Passport

Authorities, but the same was rectified by issuing a new

passport. The petitioner did not face any problem for

such mistake. The second incident is entirely different

from the first inasmuch as the same concerns travelling

to UAE by the petitioner without a valid Visa. This was

entirely the petitioner's own decision for which he was

penalized. None other than the petitioner can possibly

be blamed for such indiscretion.

9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of

the view that no fault being attributable to the Passport

Authorities, he is not entitled to be compensated by

them. As regards the direction to allow him to move to

UAE (Dubai), it is still open to him to do so by obtaining

Visa and by following all rules, regulations and

protocols associated with international travel, which he

appears to have ignored entirely on the earlier occasion.

No direction from this Court is necessary in this regard.

10. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the writ

application which is therefore, dismissed.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak