Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 575 (JK)

Addul Majid Sheikh v. U. O. I.

2011-10-25

J.P.SINGH

body2011
Judgment : 1. The petitioner-Abdul Majid Sheikh, who served the Education Department of the State Government for three decades, applied for renewal of his passport, issued in November, 1997, term whereof had expired by efflux of time. His Writ Petition OWP No.590/08 was disposed of by this Court issuing directions to the Passport Authorities to consider his case for grant of fresh passport on the basis of the Verification Report of the State Government on petitioner’s antecedents. 2. The Regional Passport Officer, Jammu, rejected the petitioner’s claim saying that on the basis of Senior Superintendent of Police, CID, J&K, Jammu’s adverse report not recommending issuance of passport to the petitioners the passport applied for could not be issued in terms of the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) and (c) of the Passports Act, 1967. 3. Vide Order dated 26-9-2011, the State-respondents were required to place on records material on the basis whereof they would contest issuance of passport to the petitioner. 4. The State-respondents have not placed any material on records except filing Superintendent of Police (A) CID, Hqrs’ Affidavit. 5. Perusal of the Affidavit of the Superintendent of Police indicates that all that had weighed with the State Authorities in not recommending petitioner’s case for issuance of passport was that the petitioner’s son having joined militancy in March, 1999 was still underground and the petitioner was, therefore, disentitled to issuance of passport. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Passport may be refused on the grounds indicated in Section 6 and on no other grounds. The provisions of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 is reproduced hereunder for reference: “6. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Passport may be refused on the grounds indicated in Section 6 and on no other grounds. The provisions of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 is reproduced hereunder for reference: “6. Refusal of Passports, Travel Documents etc.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Passport Authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to be detrimental to the security of India; (c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country’; (d) that in the opinion of the Central Government, the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a Court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a Court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such Court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.” 8. State Government has not placed any material on records to support its plea that the petitioner belongs to a strong Militancy related family background, as indicated in its response to the Writ Petition. State Government has not placed any material on records to support its plea that the petitioner belongs to a strong Militancy related family background, as indicated in its response to the Writ Petition. The fact that petitioner’s son had joined militancy about 12 years ago and was till underground, without there being any allegation of petitioner’s omission, act or overt act in either helping his son or in any way acting in any such fashion that may directly or indirectly be detrimental to the interests of the country or against its security, cannot be used against the petitioner to affect his right to seek passport when nothing has been attributed by the State-respondents, on the basis of some or the other material, about petitioner’s likely to engage himself in any such activity which may attract any one or other conditions indicated in Section 6 of the passports Act, disentitling him to issuance of Passport. 9. The fact that petitioner has served the State Government for three decades as a teacher and was issued passport on two occasions, firstly in the year 1997 and thereafter in the year 2006-2007, which he is not stated to have misused for any such purpose as forbidden by the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, does not appear to have been taken note of by the State Government while submitting its adverse report not recommending issuance of passport to the petitioner. 10. The adverse report sent by the State Government to the passport Officer, on the basis whereof, the passport was refused by the Regional Passport Officer, is, therefore, fond unjustified, besides being unwarranted, in that, the adverse report sent against the petitioner is not supported by any material/evidence of any type whatsoever. 11. The refusal of passport by the Regional Passport Officer on the report of the State Government, which is found unsustainable, cannot, therefore, be sustained and justified. 12. This petition, accordingly, succeeds and is, therefore, allowed setting aside Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Passport Office, Jammu’s No. B/000273/07-Court case dated 22-4-2010 and the adverse report submitted by the State Government to the Regional Passport Officer. 13. A direction shall, therefore, issue to the Regional Passport Officer, Jammu to issue requisite passport to the petitioner enabling him to perform Haj Pilgrimage. Petition allowed.