JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Deepak Sadashiv Nikalje-petitioner herein, is aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2, on 9th October, 2000 and 8th June, 2001, respectively whereby the petitioner has been refused issuance of passport.

2. The petitioner is an Indian Citizen and claims to be a reputed film maker, having made film "Vastav" which, according to him, was awarded the best film Award for 1999 by various organisations in the film industry. He was born on 27th July, 1967 and as per his case he is staying in Bombay with his wife and two children. The petitioner was issued Indian passport bearing No. B-631528 on 4th December, 1986. Upon initial expiry of the passport after five years, the said passport was renewed for a further period of five years and it expired on 3rd December, 1996. On 15th February, 1999 the petitioner submitted an application for renewal/issuance of fresh passport to the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai (respondent No. 3). The application received by the Regional Passport Officer was sent for police verification and it appears that the petitioners case was not recommended by the police authorities and by order dated 24th April, 2000, the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai refused passport to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal. Vide communication dated 13th June, 2000 the petitioner was informed that his appeal was dismissed due to adverse police report. The petitioner upset by the orders of the Regional Passport Authority and the Appellate Authority, filed writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1422 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4th September, 2000 by the Division Bench of this Court. In paras 5 and 6 of the order of the Division Bench observed thus:

"5. The appellate order is equally cryptic, and all that the appellate order contains is that the appeal has been dismissed due to adverse police reports. It is really surprising that the appellate order refers to adverse police reports when there is no reference to any such report in the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer. It is also surprising that such an order has been passed by the Regional Passport Officer and the Appellate Authority despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhis case. The order refusing passport facility to the petitioner contains no reasons whatsoever. A mere reference to the section empowering the authority to refuse passport facility is no substitute to a reasoned order so that the petitioner may have an effective remedy by way of an appeal before the competent authority. The reasons that are disclosed must be germane, and not the ipse dixit of the Regional Passport Officer. In doing so, the Regional Passport Officer must be guided by the provisions of the Passports Act, particularly, section 6 thereof which lays down the paramenters of the jurisdiction of the Passport Officer.

6. Since the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority contain no reasons whatsoever, both the orders, Exhibit "C" dated 24th April, 2000 and Exhibit "E" dated 13th June 2000 are quashed. The Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai is directed to hear the petitioner before passing an order on his application for grant of passport facility. After affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Regional Passport Officer may pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Since the matter has been pending for a long time, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Regional Passport Officer on 18th September, 2000 on which date, the Regional Passport Officer may either hear him or fix a date for hearing so that the application would be disposed of by 10th October, 2000. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer. If so advised, he may appeal against the said order."

3. Rule was thus made absolute by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document