JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J.:- Balwinder Kaur Saini is the petitioner who is seeking return of her passport F-5675521 issued to her on December 2,2005. 2. The petitioner’s case is that she married Anokh Singh (date not disclosed) and after marriage her husband shifted to Canada. The petitioner wished to join her husband’s home in Canada and applied for a passport, which she received and she also moved to Canada in 1997. 3. On November 2, 1997 she gave birth to a son, Kamaljot Singh Saini in Vancouver, British Columbia, birth certificate is Annexure P-1. Petitioner stayed in Canada from the year 1997 to 2004. She has given the details of the places where she worked, from April 1998 to 2003, in para 5 of the petition. In 2004 the petitioner’s passport was allegedly found to be not genuine and she was deported to India to obtain a fresh passport. The petitioner returned to India with her son, leaving her husband behind. After sometime her son returned to Canada but the petitioner per force continued to remained here. 4. The petitioner applied for a new passport, she lodged her application on November 2, 2004 and explained all the facts of the earlier passport. On November 24, 2005 the Regional Passport Officer wrote to the petitioner asking her to furnish an-affidavit regarding her marriage and give the details of her journey. She was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/­ as penalty for suppression of material facts. This letter is Annexure P-2, an excerpt of this letter is reproduced below:­ “With reference to your passport application of even number dated 2.11.2004 regarding grant of passport facilities. You are hereby again advised to furnish proper sworn affidavit stating that you are likely to get your stay regularized or visa on the basis of your marriage etc. in that country and also furnish details of your journey with old passport number, flight number date of departure and mid (sic) visa details on which you have travelled abroad and also furnish sworn affidavit if you ever sought political asylum at abroad and deposit penalty of Rs.5000/- due to suppression of the material facts.” 5. The petitioner deposited the penalty of Rs.5000/- on November 28, 2005 and also furnished her affidavit, copy of which is Annexure P-4. 6. The petitioner deposited the penalty of Rs.5000/- on November 28, 2005 and also furnished her affidavit, copy of which is Annexure P-4. 6. After a year on December 2, 2005 the petitioner was issued passport F-5675521 a copy of which is Annexure P-5. However, on January 13, 2006 the petitioner was telegraphically asked to appear before the Passport Officer, Jalandhar alongwith her passport. The petitioner met the Passport Officer on the same day. She was asked to leave the passport for fulfillment of some compulsory official formalities. She was assured that the passport would be returned to her within 15 days. Consequently, the petitioner handed over her passport to the Passport Officer. However, inspite of her repeated oral as well as written requests, the passport was never returned to her. In April the petitioner received a letter dated April 19, 2006 (Annexure P-7) to the following effect:­ “ It is informed that it was reported to the Ministry that you had travelled abroad on Passport No.E-945607 pertaining to one Baljit Kaur. The competent authorities in the Ministry have therefore, decided to place your name in prior approval category which amounts to refusing you grant of passport facilities. This is for your information.” 7. Later in October she was communicated through notice dated October 5, 2006 (Annexure P-8) that she should appear before the Chief Passport Officer at Passport Office, Jalandhar on October 14, 2006 for a personal hearing. This was presumably a hearing of her appeal. 8. In the reply submitted by the respondents it has been disclosed that a personal hearing was given to the petitioner on December 18, 2006 and the appeal filed by her was rejected. The order in this regard is Annexure P-10, which is in the following terms:­ “I am directed to refer to your appeal dated 28/7/2006 for restoration of passport facilities and inform you that the competent authority in this Ministry has examined your appeal and the other relevant records from all aspects and it is regretted that your request for grant of passport facility cannot be acceded to.” 9. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record any order of the Appellate Authority (Chief Passport Officer) passed on December 18, 2006 or on any earlier date. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record any order of the Appellate Authority (Chief Passport Officer) passed on December 18, 2006 or on any earlier date. It is obvious that the Passport Officer’s view that any person misusing a passport or travelling under an assumed name on a passport issued to some other person is a very serious matter, as indeed it should be. 10. The respondents case is that the petitioner was deported to India on Emergency Certificate 865758 issued by Consul-General of India, Vancouver on December 9, 2003. The petitioner’s personal particulars were sent for police verification which was received on December 24, 2004. On February 18, 2005 the Passport Officer asked for details of the petitioner from Consul-General of India, Vancouver. Their reply was received on March 29, 2005 confirming that the petitioner entered Canada without valid passport/visa. The petitioner had been deported to India as she had traveled on forged passport. According to the respondents, after the petitioner was issued passport F-5675521 on December 2, 2005, a fax was received from the Ministry of External Affairs that the petitioner had travelled to Canada on passport E-945607 dated December 2, 1988 in the name of one Baljit Kaur D/o Bawa Singh, resident of VPO Dayalpur, District Jalandhar. It was on the basis of this that the petitioner had been asked to appear before the Passport Officer on January 13, 2006 and her passport was impounded under Section 10(3) (b) of the Passport Act, 1967. The petitioner had been later placed under the prior approval category. 11. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already been punished for travelling on a forged/invalid passport and of imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- in this regard. Therefore, her passport could impounded as she had already been punished and had paid the penalty. 12. We feel that the petitioner had committed a serious offence by knowing travelling as Baljit Kaur and entering Canada on someone else passport. She further made things difficult for herself by not coming clean and disclosing all the facts. Petitioner’s affidavit Annexure P-4 does not mention the above facts, she does not give the passport number on which she travelled to Canada although she admits that she had travelled on a forged passport. She undertakes that in future she would travel after getting a valid passport. Petitioner’s affidavit Annexure P-4 does not mention the above facts, she does not give the passport number on which she travelled to Canada although she admits that she had travelled on a forged passport. She undertakes that in future she would travel after getting a valid passport. She also states that if her passport is found invalid at a later stage she would surrender and seeks that a lenient view be taken. It is quite obvious from this affidavit that the petitioner did not come at all clean. The petitioner ought to have disclosed that she had travelled as Baljit Kaur, should have also disclosed that the name of the travel agent through whom she had got this passport. Was it a stolen or a lost passport? The identity of Baljit Kaur daughter of Bawa Singh, was not disclosed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner concealed material facts and the passport issued to her on December 2, 2005 was validly impounded on January 13, 2006 under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act. What would have been the position if the petitioner had disclosed all the facts, is difficult to say but soon after the passport was issued to the petitioner it was discovered that she had travelled as Baljit Kaur and the action of impounding passport was taken against the petitioner. 13. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected but the decision taken by the appellate authority was not communicated to her and has not been produced before us. Therefore, it is hard to say what the reason for dismissal of the petitioner’s statutory appeal. The petitioner states that she had travelled on a forged passport. The Passport Officer states that she had travelled as Baljit Kaur. There must be proof that it was the petitioner who was travelling as Baljit Kaur and entered Canada as Baljit Kaur but that proof is not before us. Now-a-days foreign travel leaves a chain of documentary evidence which can be closely linked. If the petitioner had lived in Canada for 7 years from 1997 to 2003 there would be her metaphorical foot prints in Canada which can be verified. The Passport Authorities have simply taken action on the basis of the report from Counsul-General. Now-a-days foreign travel leaves a chain of documentary evidence which can be closely linked. If the petitioner had lived in Canada for 7 years from 1997 to 2003 there would be her metaphorical foot prints in Canada which can be verified. The Passport Authorities have simply taken action on the basis of the report from Counsul-General. The Passport Officer did write to Baljit Kaur (holder of passport E-945607 dated December 20, 1988) but the letter was returned with the remark that the addressee stayed abroad. Although an attempt was made to trace Baljit Kaur, it was without success. 14. We are of the view that the facts as presented by the Passport Authorities certainly go against the petitioner but we would like to take a humanitarian view in this case. The petitioner’s husband and son live in Canada and unless the petitioner is reunited with her family, her right to conjugal happiness, her son’s right to his mother’s love and her husband’s right to his wife’s company would be violated. The petitioner cannot be condemned to live alone in India forever when her husband, her son and her real matrimonial home are in Canada. The petitioner has been punished enough for her grave misdemeanour. According to her passport, her date of birth is January 2, 1973. When she travelled to Canada in 1997 as Baljit Kaur she was only 24 years of age probably, newly married and may not have been in control of her affairs, which were probably managed by her husband or her father-in-law or her father. As a young woman from rural background, there were men looking after her affairs, and making her travelling arrangements. She was clearly under their influence and not in control of her own destiny. Considering all these factors we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s case deserves to be viewed leniently and she should be granted the prior approval for issuance of a passport to her. 15. The petitioner should apply for a fresh passport within two weeks from today, prior approval shall be granted by the respondents within four weeks thereafter and passport shall be issued to the petitioner within two weeks of prior approval. This petition is disposed of in the above terms. —————————