Jaswinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12263 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

203                                             CWP No.40342 of 2018 (O&M)
                                                Date of Decision: 27.09.2022

Jaswinder Singh                                             ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

Union of India and others                                   ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:-     Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate,
              for the respondents.

                     *****
VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition under Article 226/227

of the Constitution of India is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus, directing the respondents to re-issue the passport to the

petitioner.

The facts in brief are that the passport issued earlier to the

petitioner was valid up to 28.09.2004 and he moved an application for re-

issue of passport on 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-3).

On the said application, the petitioner scheduled an appointment

for 26.10.2018 (Annexure P-4).

It is averred that on 21.11.2018, the petitioner received a text

message (Annexure P-5) through 'Short Message Service' (SMS), apprising

him that police has submitted adverse report for the petitioner's current

address. The petitioner has mentioned in his application (Annexure P-3) that

he was implicated in case FIR No.53 dated 18.03.2011 under Sections

22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

1 of 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid

FIR was registered at Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh.

The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 05.06.2013

by the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. He was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac

and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The said order is under challenge in CRA-S-2346-SB-2013,

which is pending adjudication. On 26.02.2015, the sentence of the petitioner

was suspended vide orders passed in CRM-20531-2014 (Annexure P-2).

On notice, a short reply has been filed, wherein it has been

disclosed that the file has been closed on 06.05.2019.

The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:-

"2. That due to receipt of an adverse police report the passport was not issued to the applicant and his file has been closed on dated 06.05.2019.

3. That in this case if the applicant approaches this office with ne application along with copy of court judgment regarding acquittal in the above cited case or with the permission to travel abroad from the trial court, his application will be considered and processed as per rule."

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no

hesitation in approaching the passport authority with another application but

by misconstruing the legal statutory provisions, as has been done earlier, the

subsequent application is likely to meet the same fate.

2 of 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that in view of

the fact that the petitioner was convicted on 05.06.2013 and the period of 5

years stipulated under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, stood

expired on 06.06.2018, i.e. much prior to the date of the application on

28.08.2018, but passport was not issued and the file was closed.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to argue

contrary to the statutory provisions. She would submit that in case the

petitioner applies afresh, his application would be considered in accordance

with law and the petitioner should file along with his application the relevant

judgment and order with regard to the proceedings in the FIR case noticed

above.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the above and respective stand of the parties, the

petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh, as per the

submissions made hereinabove on behalf of the respondents, in accordance

with law. On doing so, respondent No.2 would process the said application,

as per the prescribed procedure.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

                                                      (VIKAS SURI)
                                                         JUDGE
September 27, 2022
vcgarg

             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes
             Whether reportable:                      No




                                3 of 3