Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 771 (JK)

Mohammad Shafeeq v. Union of India

2017-08-31

TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. By the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to issue permanent passport in his favour. 2. The main facts emanating from the case set up by the petitioner, in nutshell, are that he had applied for issuance of Passport in his favour vide File No.JM1068493125815 and after applying visited the office of Passport Officer, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu several times but every time he was told that police report is awaited. Thereafter, petitioner approached respondents No.5 and 6 to process and forward his case of police/CID verification, but according to petitioner, they failed to discharge their statutory obligations/duties which deprived the petitioner to get passport to go abroad. 3. It is contended that respondent No.3, i.e., Passport Officer, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu informed petitioner vide his communication dated 23.06.2015 that as per the police verification report case for grant of passport was not recommended by respondents No. 4 to 6 and he was advised to liaise with CID Headquarter for certain clarifications/explanations. 4. Feeling aggrieved of inaction on part of the respondents for not issuing Passport, petitioner entered into portals of this Court by filing present writ petition. 5. On notice, official respondents No. 4 to 6 have filed the reply to the instant petition contending therein that in terms of police report received from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri, brother of petitioner, namely, Mohammed Sadiq joined militancy on 05.08.2002 and crossed over to POK illegally, therefore, on this count, petitioner’s case for grant of passport was not approved and sent to office of respondent No.3 as not recommended. 6. Per contra, petitioner’s counsel contends that neither petitioner is involved in any anti national activity nor in any criminal case but denial of Passport to him amounts to deprivation of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Section 5 Sub-Section 3 of Passport Act 1967 envisages that on the application of Passport, the authority shall endorse/record in writing a brief statement of reasons whereas in the case of petitioner there is no reason recorded. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ record and considered their submissions. 8. Section 5 Sub-Section 3 of Passport Act 1967 envisages that on the application of Passport, the authority shall endorse/record in writing a brief statement of reasons whereas in the case of petitioner there is no reason recorded. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ record and considered their submissions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that merely on the ground that adverse report against the relation, petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 9. On perusal of communication dated 23.06.2015 addressed to petitioner by respondent No.3-Passport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Jammu, it reveals that case of the petitioner was not recommended on the basis of adverse police report received from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri. 10. Law is well settled that in the event relation of the petitioner has committed crime, he should not be punished. Therefore, non issuance of Passport in his favour by the respondents on the face of it, is violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Same view has already been taken by the coordinate Bench in cases reported as 2009 (1) SLJ 197 and 2014 (1) JKJ 494 (HC). Also this Bench has taken the similar view in OWP Nos.475/2013 titled “Zaitoon Akhter Sheikh Vs. UOI and Ors.”, vide order/judgment dated 31.08.2015, 1647/2016 titled “Abdul Wahid Sheikh and Ors. Vs. State of J&K and Ors.” vide order/judgment dated 10.04.2017 and 339/2014 titled “Ghulam Rasool And Anr. Vs. UOI and Ors.”, vide judgment/order dated 17.12.2016. 12. For the aforestated reasons, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to reconsider the case of the petitioner objectively, uninfluenced by the adverse report recorded against the relation of the petitioner and make appropriate report to the Passport Officer, Jammu-respondent No.3, strictly in the light of personal conduct and activities of the petitioner. The said respondents while framing their opinion, shall also afford opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Let respondent Nos. 4 to 6 complete the exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall, thereafter process the case of the petitioner on the basis of such report to be forwarded by the respondent Nos. Let respondent Nos. 4 to 6 complete the exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall, thereafter process the case of the petitioner on the basis of such report to be forwarded by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 within a period of two weeks. 13. Disposed of as above along with connected MPs, on the aforesaid terms.