P.S.NARAYANA
RAGHURAM KAMISETTY – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
"in the meanwhile, there shall be stay of collection of penalty imposed under the proceedings of the respondent No. 1, dated 10. 7. 2006. Print the name of Mr. J. Ashok for respondents".
( 2 ) COUNTER affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent.
( 3 ) SRI K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the imposition of penalty on the ground of alleged suppression of information cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant statutory provisions in the Passport Act, 1967.
( 4 ) PER contra, Sri J. Ashok, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent would maintain that in the facts and circumstances the order made is in accordance with law. The learned counsel strongly relied upon Section 12 (1) (b)of the Passport Act, 1967 in this regard.
( 5 ) HEARD the counsel.
( 6 ) THE Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.