DelhI HC: Passport & Personal Identification Details Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act to third party as it is invasion of Privacy

 Further, the observations of learned Single Judge in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions are contrary to the judgment of another learned Single Judge in Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission, W.P.(C) 9118/2009 decided on 2nd January, 2010 as well as a Division Bench's judgment in Harish Kumar v. Provost Marshal-Cum-Appellate Authority, LPA 253/2012 decided on 30th March, 2012. In Suhas Chakma (supra) another learned Single Judge has held as under:

"5. The Court is of the considered view that information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party." {Para 12}

13. The relevant portion of the Division Bench in Harish Kumar (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

9. What we find in the present case is that the PIO had not refused the information. All that the PIO required the appellant to do was, to follow third party procedure. No error can be found in the said reasoning of the PIO. Under Section 11 of the Act, the PIO if called upon to disclose any information relating to or supplied by a third party and which is to be treated as confidential, is required to give a notice to such third party and is to give an opportunity to such third party to object to such disclosure and to take a decision only thereafter.

10. There can be no dispute that the information sought by the appellant was relating to a third party and supplied by a third party. We may highlight that the appellant also wanted to know the caste as disclosed by his father-in-law in his service record. The PIO was thus absolutely right in, response to the application for information of the appellant, calling upon the appellant to follow the third party procedure under Section 11. Reliance by the PIO on Section 8 (1) (j) which exempts from disclosure of personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwanted invasion of the privacy of the individual was also apposite. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P.(C) 5836/2018

Decided On: 28.01.2025

Rakesh Kumar Vs. Central Public Information Officer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sachin Datta, J.

Citation: 2025DHC 618: MANU/DE/0639/2025.

Print Page

Whether passport authority can reject application of accused for passport on the ground that she has not furnished surety as per S 437A of CRPC after her acquittal?

 As noted above, the said order confirming the

Judgment and Order of acquittal, has not been challenged by the

CBI. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of Section 437A

Cr.P.C is to enable the Court to execute bail bonds with surety

from the accused, so as to enable them to appear before the High

Court as and when the Court issues notice in respect of any

appeal or petition filed against the judgments of the respective

Courts. Under Section 437A, the bail bonds are to remain in force for six months as per sub-section (2) of Section 437A and if the accused fails to appear, the bail bond shall stand forfeited under provision under Section 446 would thereafter apply. Section 446 deals with the procedure when bond has to be forfeited.  {Para 12}

13 From the facts as narrated aforesaid, it is evident that

the petitioner had indeed furnished PR Bond as directed by the

Court and the trial Court had extended time to furnish surety. In

the interregnum, CBI had filed an appeal against the petitioner’s

acquittal and that the petitioner had appeared before the High

Court, pursuant to the notice and subsequently, after hearing the

parties, had rejected CBI’s application seeking leave to file appeal.

14 In these circumstances, there was no justification for

the CBI to give a report as given by the CBI to the respondent

No. 2. The object of Section 437A is to secure the presence of an

accused before the higher forum, after the acquittal. The

petitioner had infact furnished PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/- before

the trial Court. In the present case, the petitioner infact,

appeared before the High Court, pursuant to the notice issued in

the appeal filed by the CBI. In these circumstances, the CBI

ought to have been fair and ought to have accordingly given a

report, instead of stating that the case matter is still pending in

CBI and her file should not be cleared, when infact, there was no

proceeding pending before any Court of law, at the relevant time.

Neither has the learned counsel for the CBI been able to point

out, what were the proceedings which were pending before the

CBI at the time when such a report was forwarded to the

respondent No. 2-Authority. Therefore, the report given by the

CBI to the respondent No. 2 was clearly contrary to what had

really taken place.

17 Since the petitioner’s earlier application seeking

issuance of passport has been closed, we grant liberty to the

petitioner to apply afresh for issuance of fresh passport. If an

application is made for issuance of fresh passport, the respondent

No. 2 to issue the same in accordance with law under the

Passport Act and its Rules and keeping in mind what is stated

aforesaid in this order. The application, if filed, be considered

expeditiously.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3017 OF 2023

Jigna Jitendra Vora Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &

GAURI GODSE, JJ.

MONDAY, 25 th SEPTEMBER 2023

Print Page

Whether the accused must obtain the trial court's permission to renew the passport if a higher court stays the criminal proceeding?

Arguably, case of the petitioner falls into this category. Be that as it may. (c) The impugned Endorsement is structured on the ground that a criminal case is pending inter alia against the petitioner in C.C.No.11606/2020, in the Court of learned

XVII ACMM, Bengaluru City. The same having been challenged in W.P.No.14431/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stayed all further proceedings before the Trial judge vide interim order dated 10.12.2020, is not in dispute. That being the position, the respondent- RPO is not justified in asking the petitioner to go the Trial the learned Trial

Judge to seek permission to travel aboard in the ‘stayed proceedings’. The Notification dated 25.08.1993 purportedly issued under Section 22 of the Act, normally expects an

order of the kind and this norm is applicable in ordinary circumstances, in the sense that the criminal proceedings are not stayed and hands of the Trial Judge are free to work, and not in the circumstances that have tied his hands. A contention to the

contrary amounts to asking the citizen to do an impossible act. Ordinarily, an act impossible of performance is treated as either having been accomplished or waived vide lex non cogit ad impossibilia which Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th

Edition, Butterworths Wadhwa at pages 326 to 328 extensively discusses. Thus, the insistence on production of an order as mentioned in the impugned Endorsement is not justified.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021(GM-PASS); 

KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

Dated:17 MARCH, 2022

Print Page

Whether court or police has power to impound passport?

In our opinion, while the police may have the power to seize a passport under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C., it does not have the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.

15. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between seizing of a document and impounding a document. A seizure is made at a particular moment when a person or authority takes into his possession some property which was earlier not in his possession. Thus, seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document the said property or document is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property/or document. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition), the word "impound" has been defined to mean

"to take possession of a document or thing for being held in custody in accordance with law".

Thus, the word "impounding" really means retention of possession of a good or a document which has been seized.

16. Hence, while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Cr.P.C. if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Cr.P.C.), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the Passport Authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the Passport Authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the Passport Authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences must be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to a party vide State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei [MANU/SC/0332/1967 : Air 1967 SC 1269].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

W.P.(MD) No. 24591 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 22299 of 2018

Decided On: 11.02.2020

 Gideon Jacob Vs. The Foreigners's Regional Registration Officer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Sundar, J.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Passport Authorities have no power to impose penalties or fine for violation of passport Act

1) The poignant question raised is whether an authority under the Passports Act, 1967, has any power to impose penalty/fine invoking the powers under Section 12 of the Act 1967. It is submitted by the petitioners that as per relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, a passport authority

defined under Section 2(c) of the Act has only delegated powers to issue

passport under Section 5(2)(a) or reject an incomplete passport

application under Section 5(2)(c) or refuse a passport under Section 6(2)

or restrict the validity under Section 7(b) or impound/revoke a passport

under Section 10(3) of the said Act, and not to impose any penalty.

2) Taking into account the rival submissions made across the Bar,

our endeavour is to find out the legal purport of Section 12 of the Act

1967 extracted above. On a reading of Section 12(1), it is clear that

offences and penalties are prescribed for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or for the reasons enumerated thereunder, which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term prescribed thereunder or with fine prescribed thereunder or with both. Therefore, it is evident from the

provisions that in the event of any person found guilty, he is liable to be

punished with an imprisonment for a term prescribed thereunder or in

the alternative to impose fine prescribed thereunder or with both.

Therefore, on a deeper analysis of the provision, it is amply clear that the

passport issuing authority or any of the authorities under the Act, 1967

are given powers under the Passports Act, 1967 or Rules framed

thereunder, to initiate prosecution for the contravention of the provisions

of the Passports Act, 1967. A reading of the provision further shows

that, the power to punish with imprisonment is conferred only to the

Magistrates as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Fine as

an alternative to imprisonment on finding guilty, can only be imposed by

the competent Magistrate who adjudicates the issue on the basis of any

complaint filed by the passport authority. Therefore, it is unequivocal that the passport authority is not vested with

any powers under Section 12 to impose any fine on any person who

commits any offence in contemplation of Section 12 of the Act 1967.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

&

 MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

WP(C).No.7945 OF 2018(S)

 CITIZENS LEGAL RIGHT ASSOCIATION Vs  UNION OF INDIA

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2020

S.Manikumar, CJ.

Print Page

Whether passport authorities can refuse to issue passport to accused even if court has permitted him to travel abroad?

 The principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to denial of passport facilities by respondent no. 5 (Regional Passport Office). The said facilities have been denied to the petitioner, as he has been charged with offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the respondents that since charges have been framed in view of the aforesaid criminal case, passport facilities have been denied to the petitioner in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

6. In view of the above, the provisions of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act cannot be read to deny passport facilities to the petitioner, as he has obtained the necessary permission from the concerned Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the PEC Limited (respondent no. 2) had contended that the said order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Court of the Special Judge is conditional and permits issuance of a passport only if it is otherwise permissible as per the relevant passport rules. However, apart from referring to Sections 6(2)(f) and 10 of Act, he has not drawn the attention of this Court to any other rule, which would preclude the petitioner from obtaining passport facilities. The reliance on Section 10 of the Act is ex facie misplaced, since it pertains only to impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. The relevant provision is Clause (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act. However, the rigors of that provision, as noticed above, have been relaxed by the notification dated 25.08.1993.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 12136/2018

Decided On: 13.05.2019

 Rajiv Chaturvedi  Vs.  Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Print Page

Whether magistrate can impose conditions of depositing of passport and not travel abroad without permission while releasing accused in bailable case?

There are no such conditions which can be imposed while granting bail in a bailable offence under Section 436.

14. In Cri. W.P. No. 865 of 2007, Sultan Kamruddin Dharani v. The Union of India and Ors., decided by this Court on 19th September, 2008, a question arose, as to whether in a bailable offence under Customs Act, while granting bail, Court could impose condition to deposit Passport and not to travel abroad without permission. This Court (Coram A.S. Oka J.) observed thus in para 19:

Thus, the position of the law is that a person who is alleged to have committed a bailable offence has an unfettered and absolute right to be enlarged on bail and the Court or the Police Officer concerned, as the case may be, has no discretion to grant or refuse bail. Subject to first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 436 of the Code of 1973, the Court may modulate the condition of bail as regards the bail amount and the number of sureties. However, the Court cannot impose a condition which is not a term as to the bail. The condition of requiring a person accused of a bailable offence to surrender his passport to the court is not a term as to bail. If in such a case a condition is imposed that bail is granted subject to condition of deposit of passport, such a condition will defeat the absolute right of the accused under Section 436(1) of the said Code to be set at liberty. In the circumstances, while enlarging the Petitioner on bail in a bailable offence, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct deposit of the passport. The Magistrate cannot impose a condition while granting bail in a bailable offence of not leaving India without the permission of the Court. Whenever the Petitioner is enlarged on bail he is bound to attend the concerned Court on the date fixed or whenever he is called upon to do so. This obligation is created by the bail bond. If he desires to remain absent, he will have to seek an exemption from the Court. In a given case if there is an apprehension that the accused is likely to abscond, steps can also be taken under the appropriate provisions of law. Steps can be also taken for impounding the passport.In bailable offence no conditions can be imposed except about appearance before a Court at particular place or on particular date.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2009

Decided On: 23.06.2010

Stefan Mueller Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Whether court can refuse to order production of document by applying test of comparative hardship between parties?

The Court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to order the production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to any matter in question in the suit provided the Court shall think right that the production of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The Court also has been given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just. Therefore, the power to order production of documents is coupled with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question. These are relevant considerations which the Court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the election petition.

8. Without applying any of these tests, the court below allowed the respondent's application holding that refusal of application would otherwise cause a very valuable piece of evidence in favour of the respondent to be shut out. The objection of the petitioner that passport is in his current use and parting of it would result in putting an end to his stay in Abu Dhabi was not accepted by the court below as if it did not merit any consideration under law. It is a common knowledge that a resident will not be permitted to stay in a foreign country unless he holds original passport in his possession since its production could be insisted by the authorities whenever necessary. Therefore the order of the court for production of the original for comparison by a handwriting expert would only deprive petitioner's right to stay abroad. However, the position would have been different had the direction of the court been limited to production of the passport solely for the inspection of the respondent.

9. The court below while taking care of the respondent's concern and interest in the suit, however, failed to consider the hardship exposed to the petitioner while ordering production of original passport. The extent or degree of comparative hardship likely to be suffered by the petitioner in this respect did not engage the attention of the court below. The test of comparative hardship between parties is also one of the tests to be applied by the courts in deserving cases of this nature when parties to suit apply for production of document invoking Order XI Rule 14 of the Code.

10. Order XI Rule 14 of the Code does not attach to a party an absolute right to insist for production of a document in the possession of the adverse party in support of proof of his case. The right of the applicant is liable to be determined by the court in the light of the test of expediency, justness and relevancy as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. Any direction to produce the original passport of the petitioner in court affecting his right to stay abroad will only place him comparably in great hardship than the respondent who relies on the document and seeks to prove his case. Applying the test in Sasanagouda's case, I am satisfied that the impugned order dated 5.10.2017 does not accord with the interest of expediency or justness and therefore it is liable to be set aside as being illegal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (C) No. 492 of 2018

Decided On: 05.02.2019

Thundiyil Abdurahiman  Vs.  Asharaf Kalapeedikayil

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Anilkumar, J.

Citation: AIR 2020 (NOC) 208 Kerala

Print Page

Whether inordinate delay in issue or renewal of passport amounts to violation of fundamental right?

 In this case, denial of a passport ‒ which is the effect of non-renewal
for such an extended period – clearly impinges on the fundamental rights of
the petitioner.
14. Although, Ms Gosain had earnestly contended that the respondent had
not refused renewal of passport as yet, the fact that the petitioner’s passport
has not been renewed in almost two years despite the petitioner’s
compliance with all the formalities, leaves no room for doubt that the
petitioner has been denied passport facilities. The fundamental rights of a
citizen cannot be held hostage to an inordinately long inquiry being

conducted by the respondent or its agencies.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 2091/2018 & C.M. Nos. 8677/2018 & 35544/2018

JASVINDER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
Dated:11.09.2018

Print Page

Whether passport can be denied to a person if criminal appeal against acquittal is pending against him?

Obviously, therefore, the respondent in an appeal against an order
of acquittal is one who should be available to the jurisdiction of the
appellate Court, which is in seison (sic) of the appeal against the order of
acquittal.  Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of the Act provides an embargo on
issuance of a passport if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal
Court in India. The distinction between being charged of an offence
and charge being framed in relation to an offence has always been
maintained.  See for support Lt. Col. S.K. Kashyap and another vs.
State of Rajasthan . The appellate Court, even if it is the High Court, is a
Criminal Court when it sits and decides matters in criminal jurisdiction.
This is a well settled principle of law.

9.       Hence, if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant for Passport are pending before the appellate
Court; the High Court in this case; that is ground enough for the Passport
Officer to be compelled by the opening part of Sub-section (2) of Section 6
of the Act to refuse issuance of such Passport.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT                     

WRIT APPEAL No.1026 of 2018    

Dated:01.08.2018 

Subhas Chandra Bose Mandava, Vs Union of India,


HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN             
AND  
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN           

Print Page

Whether passport can be returned to accused if police has illegally seized passport?

Considering the observations of the Courts in the aforesaid
decision, it is clear that the power of impounding are vested with
the Passport Authority. In the circumstances, the passport was

seized by the respondents on 13th March, 2014. Retention of
passport for such a long period amounting to impounding, which
is not permissible in law. The illegality cannot continue in
perpetuity. It is within the domain of the Passport Authority to
initiate action under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act. In the
light of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of
Suresh Nanda (Supra), the decision can be taken by such
Authority after hearing the passport holder. The illegal
impounding therefore cannot be continued by handing over the
passport by the respondents to the Passport Authority after a
lapse of more than three years. However, it would be open to the
Passport Authority to initiate any action under Section 10(3)(e) of
the Passport Act. The passport, however, is required to be
returned to the applicant. This order is without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the respondents any other Competent
Authority, Passport Authority to initiate action and of impounding
under the provisions of the Passport Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2018

Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DELIVERED ON : JUNE 04, 2018.

Print Page

What conditions should be imposed on accused for returning passport for going abroad during pendancy of case?

Considering the background of the case and the social status of
the applicant, in my view, the following order would sub­serve the interests
of justice :  
i)  The applicant shall give the proposed tour programme to the
Investigating Officer.
ii)  On receiving the proposed tour programme, the Investigating
Officer   shall   return   the   passport   to   the   applicant,
immediately.
iii)   The applicant is permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia.
iv)  In addition to the security given by the applicant as per sthe
order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the applicant
shall   furnish   P.   R.   Bond   for   Rs.Fifty   Thousand   and   one
solvent   surety   in   the   like   amount   before   the   passport   is
handed over to the applicant.
v)  After returning from her tour to Saudi Arabia the applicant
shall deposit the passport with the Investigating Officer.
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 188  OF 2016
Smt. Shaila Parveen W/o. Dr. Abdul Wahid, V State of Maharashtra,

     CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
    DATED   : APRIL 27, 2016.

Print Page

New passport application rules add options for single parents, sadhus

New Delhi: Acknowledging a changing social milieu and its reflection in paperwork, the ministry of external affairs on Friday unveiled a series of changes in the passport application process.

The online passport application form now requires the applicant to provide the name of only one parent as opposed to both in order to enable those with single parents to apply for passports.

This comes on the heel of reports over the past two years of passport offices insisting on the father’s name in the form even if the mother is a single parent.

Print Page

When high court should not issue direction to passport authority to consider representation?

In this context, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (M. Ingaci vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai Municipality, Sivagangai District) 2010 2 Law Weekly 785, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that there are several instances where unscrupulous petitioners have misused the direction issued to "consider".  It was further held that  there are large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider".  The Division Bench also relied on para Nos. 18 to 210 of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in the case of A.P. SRTC vs. G. Srinivas Reddy (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006, 3 Law Weekly 170, wherein in Para Nos. 18 to 20, it was held as under:-
"18.  We may also note that sometimes the High Court dispose of the matter merely with a direction to the authority to 'consider' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available.  Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to 'consider' the matter afresh.  Be that as it may.
19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of 'pliable' authorities have misused the direction 'to consider' issued by Court.  We may illustrate by an example.  A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation.  On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to 'consider' and dispose of the representation.  When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider', the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to 'consider' the grant of relief.  Instances are also not wanting where authorities unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider' as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted.  Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to 'consider' may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction 'to consider' the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption in to regular service is a species of cases, where there has been large-scale misuse of the orders 'to consider'.
20. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petition with a direction 'to consider', there is a need for the High Court to make the direction clear and specific.  The order should clearly indicate whether the High Court is recording any finding about the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief or whether the petition is being disposed of without examining the claim on merits.  The court should also normally fix a time-frame for consideration and decision.  If no time frame is fixed and if the authority does not decide the matter, the direction of the court becomes virtually infructuous as the aggrieved petitioner will have to come again to court with a fresh writ petition or file an application for fixing time for deciding the matter."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


Pronounced on : 07-03-2016

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH

Writ Petition No. 7376 of 2015

K. Maiyyan .. Petitioner 

Versus

 The Regional Passport Officer
   Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)525 Mad

Print Page

When date of birth in passport can be corrected without declaration by Magistrate?

Admittedly, in the instant case, the correction sought by
the petitioner is only with regard to the date and month wherein
she was born in the year 1996. The petitioner has produced the
proof of her correct date of birth i.e. Secondary School
Examination Certificate and PAN card. In considered opinion of
this court, the correction sought for by the petitioner is very
minor correction and it appears to be a bona fide error that her
date of birth was wrongly mentioned when she applied for the
passport and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the respondents are not justified in refusing the
correction in the date of birth, as prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to re-issue the passport after correction in the date
of birth of the petitioner as prayed for, taking the date of birth as
mentioned in her Secondary School Examination Certificate as
conclusive without insisting upon a declaratory order from First
Class Judicial Magistrate. 
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
MS SHILPI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6598/14)


Dated:- 10.8.16
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to disclose name of father while seeking passport?

The Supreme Court in ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2015 SC 2569 has held that it is not imperative for an unwed mother to specifically notify the putative father of the child whom she has given birth to of her petition for appointment as the guardian of her child. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as under:-

"9. ..............In situations such this, where the father has not exhibited any concern for his offspring, giving him legal recognition would be an exercise in futility. In today's society, where women are increasingly choosing to raise their children alone, we see no purpose in imposing an unwilling and unconcerned father on an otherwise viable family nucleus. It seems to us that a man who has chosen to forsake his duties and responsibilities is not a necessary constituent for the wellbeing of the child...........

xxx xxx xxx

11. ..........Any responsible man would keep track of his offspring and be concerned for the welfare of the child he has brought into the world; this does not appear to be so in the present case, on a perusal of the pleading as they presently portray........

12. We recognize that the father's right to be involved in his child's life may be taken away if Section 11 is read in such a manner that he is not given notice, but given his lack of involvement in the child's life, we find no reason to prioritize his rights over those of the mother or her child........

13. ..........the welfare of the child would be undermined if the Appellant is not compelled to disclose the identity of the father, or that Court notice is mandatory in the child's interest. On the contrary, we find that this may well protect the child from social stigma and needless controversy.

xxx xxx xxx

15. .........The views of an uninvolved father are not essential, in our opinion, to protect the interests of a child born out of wedlock and being raised solely by his/her mother....... The sole factor for consideration before us, therefore, is the welfare of the minor child, regardless of the rights of the parents..........

xxx xxx xxx

18. .........The provisions of the Convention which we have extracted indeed reiterate the settled legal position that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration vis a vis the perceived rights of parents not only so far as the law in India is concerned, but preponderantly in all jurisdictions across the globe........"

(emphasis supplied)

18. The Supreme Court in the case of ABC (supra) also quoted with approval the Convention on the Rights of the Child in particular its Article 12 which reads as under:-

"1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law."

(emphasis supplied)

19. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that families of single parents are on the increase due to various reasons like unwed mothers, sex workers, surrogate mothers, rape survivors, children abandoned by father and also children born through IVF technology.

20. Consequently, this Court is of the view that mother's name is sufficient in certain cases like the present one to apply for Passport, especially as a single woman can be a natural guardian and also a parent.

21. This Court further finds merit in the submission of the petitioners that if the respondents direction to petitioner No.2 to mention her father's name is not quashed, it would compel the petitioner No.2 to alter not only her name, but also her identity that she had been using since her birth i.e. daughter of petitioner No.1 rather than her biological father who had abandoned her at the time of her birth.

22. As regards the contention of the respondents that the computer does not accept the application form without the name of the father being filled up, this Court was informed by the learned Amicus Curiae that the online Passport application as updated on 29th January, 2016 provides that in the column of Family Details, only one detail out of the details of Father/Mother/Legal Guardian, is mandatory and required to be filled.

23. In any case, technology is intended to ease and facilitate transactions and cannot be the basis for creating and defeating anybody's legal rights. If the only impediment, in way of granting the relief sought by the petitioners, is the software, the same ought to be suitably modified to accept the application of the petitioner No.2, if she is otherwise entitled for re-issuance of the Passport.

24. The fact that the respondents had on previous two occasions, in the year 2005 and 2011 issued Passport to petitioner No.2, without insisting on father's name, makes it evident that the said requirement is not a legal necessity, but only a procedural formality, which cannot be the basis of rejecting the petitioner No. 2's case. Consequently, it appears that legally and factually there is no impediment in issuing the Passport to the petitioner No.2, without mentioning her father's name.

25. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to modify their software and accept petitioner No.2's application and issue her a Passport without insisting upon mentioning her father's name. With the aforesaid direction, present petition and application stand disposed of.

Delhi High Court

Shalu Nigam & Anr vs The Regional Passport Officer & ... on 17 May, 2016

W.P.(C) 155/2016 & CM APPLs. 684-685/2016

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Print Page

Whether plaintiff can prove pucca construction on the basis of passport,electricity bill and telephone bill?

Even copy of the passport, electricity bill and telephone
bill, produced on record by the appellant would not indicate that the
suit premises was a pacca structure or that the appellant was
carrying on business in the premises since 1961-1962. If the
appellant was carrying on any business in the premises since 1961-
1962, the appellant would have in his possession several documents
and/or permission from the Municipal Corporation or other authorities
to indicate that such business was being carried on since 1961-1962.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.75 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2015

Mohd. Ismail Gulam Shaikh V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr.

 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
 DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2016.
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ247

Print Page

When consumer complaint is maintainable in respect of issue of passport?

The Government of India has already outsourced a number of functions post-decision of the
Passport Officer to issue passport to an applicant, to an outside agency. A perusal of the Press
Release dated 30.7.2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs would show
that under a Public-Private Partnership approach adopted by the Government, while retaining the
core and sovereign functions such as verification of supporting documents, police verification,
decision on grant of passports, revocation and impounding of passports, the activities such as
token issuance, initial security of application forms, digitization of documents, taking photographs
and biometrics are now being performed by the staff of the service provider. The aforesaid step
taken by the Government also indicates that the activities post decision of the passport officer to
issue the passports to an applicant, i.e. activities such as printing, preparation, dispatch and
delivery of the passport etc., are non-sovereign activities and that is why the said activities have
been outsourced to a private agency.
 For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered as under:
(i) A person, who applies for a passport and to whom a passport is ordered to be
issued, is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. We make it clear
that he will be a consumer only in respect of the activities which the Passport
Office or the agency to which such activities are outsourced, undertakes, after the
decision of the Passport Officer to issue a passport to the applicant;
(ii) An unjustified delay in preparation, issue, dispatch and delivery of the
passport, occurring after the Passport Officer has decided to issue passport to the
applicant or any other defect or deficiency in the activities post the decision of the
passport officer to issue a passport to the applicant, would constitute defect or
deficiency in the service as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively of
the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer complaint, seeking compensation for
such a defect or deficiency is maintainable;
(iii) any defect or deficiency in the document of passport issued to a person would
constitute defect or deficiency as defined in Section 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) respectively
of the Consumer Protection Act and a consumer complaint, seeking compensation
for such a defect or deficiency is maintainable.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 120 OF 2015

 PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE  Vs  RICHA BHANDARI

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

Dated : 16 Mar 2016

Print Page

Whether issue of passport can be withheld on the ground of registration of FIR?

In so far as the case on hand is concerned, all the
criminal complaints as against the petitioner are only at the
stage of investigation. It is not a case of the Respondent
that final reports have been filed in the criminal Courts in
any of the criminal complaints, so as to make the case
come within the four corners of Section 6(2)(f). Therefore,
the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind
and hence it is liable to be set aside.” 
Thus, it has been held that proceedings can be said to be pending
before a criminal court only when a cognizance has been taken by the
Court.
In Tarsem Singh's case (supra), this Court dealt with a
matter of re-issue of passport to the petitioner, who was convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years by the Trial
Court. Appeal against conviction and sentence filed by him was
pending, wherein, his sentence was suspended. The objection of the
respondent was that the petitioner had not disclosed about his
conviction in a criminal case at the time of police verification. Later on,
the petitioner filed affidavit mentioning these facts. In these
circumstances, this Court directed the Passport Officer to issue the
passport to the petitioner, subject to the conditions that the petitioner
shall take necessary permission by filing application before the Court to
go abroad.
In Surinder Pal Singh's case (supra), a case under
Sections 427/506/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was
registered against the petitioner. Report under Section 173 CrPC had
been filed and even the charge was also framed against him and the
case was pending for prosecution evidence. This Court disposed of
the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to apply to the concerned
criminal court and seek its permission to apply for re-issuance of
passport.
Coming to the facts of the case in hand, a criminal case
arising out of the strained matrimonial ties has been registered against
the petitioner at the instance of his alleged wife. As per the documents
available on record and the version of the parties, the Criminal Court
has not taken cognizance of it and charge against the petitioner has not
been framed.
In view of above, this petition is disposed of with a direction
to respondent No.2 to re-issue the passport to the petitioner, if there is
no other legal impediment, except the registration of the aforesaid case.
However, it is directed that the manner of the use of the passport for
travel outside will be subject to the orders of the appropriate criminal
court of competent jurisdiction in respect of the FIR registered against
the petitioner. The petitioner will himself approach the concerned Court,
and seek appropriate directions to travel abroad, if he intends to use the
passport for such a purpose.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12143 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 01, 2015

Daler Singh V Union of India and others 

Coram: MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Print Page

What are rules for grant of permission to issue passport to person against whom criminal prosecution is pending?

 It seems that after the Supreme Court judgment of Maneka Gandhi's case, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the said Act, issued a notification dated 16th August, 1979 exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before any criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of the clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, subject to the following conditions, namely.

(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued.

(i) where the order of the Court referred to above, gives such permission for a period not exceeding three months, for a period of three months and an observation will be made on the passport that the holder may travel abroad for a period not exceeding that specified in such order; or

(ii) if no period is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period for six months and may be renewed for a further period of six months, if the order of the Court is not cancelled or modified; or

(iii) in any other case, for the period for which such permission is given by such order;

(b) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

9. By the notification dated 25th August, 1993, the earlier notification was substituted granting exemption to the citizens against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a Criminal Court in India and who produce order from the Court concerned permitted them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 the said Act, subject to following conditions, namely,

(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued;

(i) for the period specified in order of the Court referred to above, if the Court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or

(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.

(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the Court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the Court is not cancelled or modified;

(c) the passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be fresh, order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

Bombay High Court

Deepak Dwarkasingh Chhabria vs Union Of India And Another on 8 August, 1996

Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 Bom 181, 1996 (2) MhLj 877

Bench: A Shah

Print Page