Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 355 (JK)

Mohd. Bin Qasim v. Union Of India

2013-06-03

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2013
1. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for grant of passport in order to pursue his studies outside the Country. It is contended that respondent No. 2 failed to issue the passport in favour of the petitioner, which compelled him to seek indulgence of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing OWP No. 413/2011. However, it is contended that during the pendency of the writ petition aforementioned, respondent No. 2 issued a passport under No. K1879755 in favour of the petitioner, for a short period of one year commencing 04th October, 2011 to 3rd October, 2012. 2. The writ petition (OWP No. 413/2011), accordingly, came to be disposed of by the Court, observing as under: "Mr. Zargar learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 & 2 states that passport has been sent to the petitioner on 13th of October, 2011, It being so, nothing survives for consideration. Petition accordingly disposed of alongwith connected CMP." 3. It is further submitted that, after obtaining the passport from respondent No. 2, petitioner got admission in International Islamic University, Malaysia for undergoing a programme of Bachelor of Information Technology. It is averred in the writ Course is four years. - 4. It is specifically mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner has submitted an application to India Passport and Other Consular Services, High Commission of India, Malaysia for granting extension in the term of his passport or issuing a fresh passport in his favour, which as per the contention of petitioner has been received on 29.06.2012. 5. It is further stated in the writ petition that neither any extension was granted in the life of the passport of the petitioner nor a fresh passport was issued in his favour by the respondents leaving him high and dry in a foreign country. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file another writ petition before this Court which was registered as OWP No. 950/2012 praying therein that the respondent No. 2 be directed to extend the life of the passport granted in favour of the petitioner or issue a fresh passport in his favour so as to enable him to pursue his ongoing course at Malaysia. 6. 6. While considering the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition therein, the Court disposed of the said writ petition in the following terms: "For the aforestated reasons, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 3 to ensure submission of requisite CID report to the Passport Authority positively within a period of two weeks from the date copy of the order is served and thereafter respondent-Passport Authority shall take decision for extension of life of passport of the petitioner within one week. In case of default on the part of respondent No. 3 in submission of verification report within two weeks, the respondent-Passport Authority, in view of the law laid down in the judgment as quoted, shall take decision for extension of life of passport of the petitioner and shall accordingly apprise the respondent No. 4 (High Commission of India, Malaysia) about the decision so taken." 7. It is contended that after receiving the judgement aforementioned, the respondents were required to extend the term of the passport in favour of the petitioner at least for a period of four years so as to enable him to complete the Course at Malaysia. It is further contended that instead of doing so, the respondents issued a short term passport again for one year only which period is expiring on 02.09.2013. Aggrieved by this act of respondents, it is contended that the maternal uncle of the petitioner filed an application before the Passport Authority at Srinagar for extension of full term passport in favour of the petitioner because of the fact that the short term passport is going to adversely affect the studies of the petitioner. 8. What is seen is that instead of renewing the passport in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 in terms of communication dated 27.03.2013 has informed the maternal uncle of the petitioner that since the passport holder is presently under the jurisdiction of India High Commission of Malaysia, therefore, he has to approach the concerned Embassy for extension of the passport there. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing the Course in Malaysia and the period of course is fixed for four years; therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid communication, which has constrained him to again invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the third time. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing the Course in Malaysia and the period of course is fixed for four years; therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid communication, which has constrained him to again invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the third time. It is further stated that the action of the respondents is unfair, unjust and arbitrary, so much so it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed to him under the Constitution. 10. Respondents have filed the reply and have resisted the petition. It is averred that the petitioner has to approach the Embassy at Malaysia and that authority has the jurisdiction to extend the grant of validity of passport in favour of the petitioner. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the matter. I have also gone through the averments made in the writ petition as also the reply filed by the respondents. 12. It hardly needs reiteration here that every person is bound by the law applicable. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition at hand and the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 read with the earlier judgement passed by this Court in OWP No. 950/2012, it is the Passport Officer at Srinagar who has to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of extension in terms of Section (8) of the Act, which reads hereunder: "Extension of period of passport- Where a passport is issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period under section 7, such shorter period shall, unless the passport authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise determines, be extendable for a further period (which together with the shorter period shall not exceed the prescribed period) and the provisions of this Act shall apply to such extension as they apply to the issue thereof." 13. While going through above provision of law, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the grounds projected by the respondents are not tenable in law. The provision of law mandates that the petitioner has to approach the same authority who has granted the passport. Even otherwise, it is a fundamental right to seek extension of passport unless there is any handicap, restriction or fetter imposed by the Passport Act or Rules. 14. The provision of law mandates that the petitioner has to approach the same authority who has granted the passport. Even otherwise, it is a fundamental right to seek extension of passport unless there is any handicap, restriction or fetter imposed by the Passport Act or Rules. 14. What I gather from the reply of the respondents is that they are passing the buck on each other. There is not even a whisper about the character and antecedents of the passport holder who is seeking extension of grant of passport so as to enable him to pursue the studies at Malaysia. What emerges from the reply of the respondents is that the guardian of the passport holder is indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State. Day in and day out, there are numerous enunciations from the Apex Court of the Country as also from other High Courts that `A' cannot be held guilty or punished for the act committed by `B'. What adverse report is against the holder of the passport is not forthcoming from the record. Learned counsels for the respondents were repeatedly asked to take the Court into confidence what is against the holder of the passport who is seeking nothing but the extension of Indian Passport. Since there is no adverse report against the passport holder, therefore, this Court is left with no option but to hold that extension of Passport cannot be refused in favour of the petitioner on any pretext. I have minutely examined the reply by the respondents, which speaks volumes about the functionaries of the Government but I refrain from expressing any opinion in this regard. 15. Having said so, while allowing this writ petition, respondents are directed to grant extension or renewal in the term of the Passport already granted in favour of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the matter involves the fundamental right of the passport holder, the exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within six weeks, from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the Passport Officer, Srinagar. 16. Disposed of along with CMP. However, there will be no order as to costs.