Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 841 (CAL)

Monika Karmakar v. Union of India

2015-10-01

DIPANKAR DATTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. The passport authority within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereafter the Act) by a notice dated October 21, 2014 called upon the petitioner to show cause within 30 days why her passport should not be revoked. She was cautioned that in the event her reply does not reach the passport authority within 30 days from date of issue thereof, her passport may be revoked under section 10 (3)(a) of the Act. Upon receipt of such notice, the petitioner duly responded by her representation dated November 03, 2014. She alleged that one Raja Mondal and one Debaprasad Bhattacharjee were trying to grab her property by describing her as a Bangladeshi national and that they have been trying to cancel the passport issued in her favour. It was, however, averred that the petitioner had been working in the house of Dr. S.K. Majumdar, a retired officer of the Kalyani University since long and that no case for revocation of her passport had been made out. 2. It appears from the records produced by Mr. Sarkar, learned senior Central Government advocate that two notices were issued to the petitioner calling upon her to attend a personal hearing. Despite receipt of such notice, the petitioner did not appear before the passport authority. 3. An order was passed on March 31, 2015, whereby the petitioner was informed of the decision of the regional passport office to revoke her passport under section 10(3)(b) of the Act. She was, accordingly, directed to submit her passport to the passport office immediately. 4. The order dated March 31, 2015 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition basically on the ground that the petitioner was asked to show cause why her passport should not be revoked under section 10(3)(a) of the Act but the decision to revoke her passport was taken under section 10(3)(b) thereof, without giving an opportunity to her to raise effective defence. 5. It has also been contended that the order dated March 31, 2015 is devoid of reasons and, therefore, could be branded as one passed in clear violation of natural justice. 6. An application for addition of party (C.A.N. 9939 of 2015) has been filed in connection with the writ petition by the said Debaprasad Bhattacharjee and Rajkumar Mondal. Mr. 5. It has also been contended that the order dated March 31, 2015 is devoid of reasons and, therefore, could be branded as one passed in clear violation of natural justice. 6. An application for addition of party (C.A.N. 9939 of 2015) has been filed in connection with the writ petition by the said Debaprasad Bhattacharjee and Rajkumar Mondal. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the applicants contends that it is on the basis of their complaint that the passport authority had initiated proceedings under section 10 against the petitioner and, therefore, they are proper parties to this writ petition. In support of the applicants claim for impleadment, Mr. Banerjee has relied on the decision of a coordinate Bench reported in 2002 (2) CHN 169 : CESC Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 7. The application for addition of party is dealt with first. Mr. Banerjee has not argued that the applicants are necessary parties; according to him, they are only proper parties to the writ petition since the passport authority had initiated proceedings on the basis of the applicants complaint. 8. The submission has to be examined keeping in mind the allegations levelled in the show cause notice as well as the impugned order, conveying the decision of revocation of passport. 9. It does not appear from either that the applicants complaint formed the genesis of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It might be so that the applicants may have complained but in the absence of the passport authority having indicated or referred to the same for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, the applicants cannot claim any right to oppose the writ petition upon their impleadment as respondents. 10. The decision in CESC Limited (supra) has been considered. It appears therefrom that it was only on the complaint filed by the person seeking to be added as respondent that proceedings under the M.R.T.P. Act had been initiated against the petitioner CESC Limited. Such fact was undisputed. It was in such circumstances that the applicant was considered to be a proper party and, therefore, the application was allowed by impleading it as party-respondent to the writ petition. 11. The notice or order of the passport authority does not recognise the applicants as complainants. They were also not put on notice before the impugned decision was taken. On the contrary, Mr. 11. The notice or order of the passport authority does not recognise the applicants as complainants. They were also not put on notice before the impugned decision was taken. On the contrary, Mr. Sarkar has submitted that certain police reports were relied on while the impugned decision was taken. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the decision in CESC Limited (supra) is distinguishable. 12. I do not see reason to implead the applicants as respondents in the writ petition. The application for addition of party being C.A.N.9939 of 2015 stands dismissed. 13. Turning to the merits of the petitioners claim, it appears that there is some controversy as to whether the petitioner obtained passport by producing valid documents or not. Although there is a police report to the effect that the documents produced by the petitioner were genuine, subsequent inquiries have revealed that the documents might be suspect. It is on the basis of the recent documents provided by the police authorities that the passport authority has proceeded to revoke the petitioners passport. However, documents produced by the petitioner do suggest that she has been in India at least since 2001 and not since 2005, which was the police version. 14. Despite Mr. Sarkars objection to the entertain-ability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of an appellate forum under section 11 of the Act, I am inclined to entertain this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has been proceeded against in clear breach of natural justice. No order of revocation could have been passed against the petitioner based on a ground, which was not put forth to her. If the passport was liable to be revoked under section 10(3)(b) of the Act, the show cause notice ought to have indicated the same instead of asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the passport shall not be revoked under section 10(3)(a) of the Act. 15. That apart, the order of the passport authority dated March 31, 2015, as rightly contended by Mr. Chakravarti, learned advocate for the petitioner, is without any reason. In the absence of any reason, it would be difficult for the petitioner to formulate the grounds of appeal for consideration by the appellate authority under section 11 of the Act. 16. For all these reasons, the writ petition deserves success and, accordingly, succeeds. Chakravarti, learned advocate for the petitioner, is without any reason. In the absence of any reason, it would be difficult for the petitioner to formulate the grounds of appeal for consideration by the appellate authority under section 11 of the Act. 16. For all these reasons, the writ petition deserves success and, accordingly, succeeds. The impugned order dated March 31, 2015 is set aside. 17. Since Mr. Sarkar has submitted that the passport authority may be allowed to issue a fresh show cause notice including clause (c) of section 10(3) of the Act, I set aside the show cause notice dated October 21, 2014 too. The passport authority shall be at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice under any relevant provision of the Act, which in his opinion is attracted on facts and in the circumstances. 18. The petitioner shall have a fortnights time from date of receipt of such notice to respond. If the response is received by the passport authority, he shall put the petitioner on notice and allow her reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the petitioner wishes to abstain from the hearing, appropriate order may be passed in her absence. 19. Nothing contained in this order shall preclude the passport authority from making further inquiries and collecting documents. 20. It is made clear that no document subsequently procured by the passport authority shall be relied on by him unless access thereto has been given to the petitioner. Also, documents produced by the petitioner shall be duly considered. 21. In the event the passport authority proceeds to revoke the passport of the petitioner once again, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to her. 22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.