Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2617
High Court of Delhi
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Kulvir Singh
Versus
Union Of India & Another
W.P.(C). Nos. 4574, 5480 & 7109 of 2014 & CM. No. 16665 of 2014
Decided on: 17-12-2014
For the Petitioner:Rajiv Gupta, Varun Mathur, Lalit, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Hashmat Nabi, Kritika Mehra, Jasmeet Singh, Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with S.S. Rai, Rohan Gupta, Advocates.
Headnote:
Passports Act, 1967 -Section 3, 10(3)(c), 11 - Denial of passport - Political Asylum - Residing overseas - Scope of - Petitioners had applied for political asylum, while they were overseas - Petitioners returned to India on an Emergency Certificate issued by the Embassy - Petitioner applied for a passport - Passport Officer rejected the application and placed the name of the petitioner under PAC for a period of five years as petitioner had made a request for political asylum - Action of the petitioners in applying for a political asylum may result in bad publicity for a country but that does not mean that same is prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India - This action cannot be considered as a ground for denying passports to the petitioners - It was asserted that the same was done without their Concurrence - A passport cannot be denied as a punition for the past acts of the petitioners - Passport authorities can deny the passport only if the applicant 'may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India' - Petitioners desire to reside overseas - It is possible that petitioners may legitimately endeavour to extend their stay overseas or may legitimately apply for seeking residence in foreign countries - It is not reasonable to assume that they would again endeavour to seek political asylum.
Passports Act, 1967 - Section 3, 10(3)(c), 11 - Passport - Denial - Jurisdiction - Mala fide - Passport officer as well as the petitioner were in Punjab - Petition had been filed only because the petitioner perceived that no relief would be granted by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court - This Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition - Counsel for the respondents did not raise no objections with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by this Court - In certain cases, this Court may decline to exercise the jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens - In this case, there is no requirement of any additional material or evidence, which would necessitate the petitioner to be directed to the Courts in Punjab - It is also not acceptable that the petitioner has strategically avoided approaching the Punjab and Haryana High Court - Held, there is no reason to refrain from exercising jurisdiction in this matter - Petitions and application are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside - Respondents are directed to process the applications filed by the petitioners for issuance of passports.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioners impugn separate orders denying passports to the respective petitioners for the reason that the petitioners had applied for political asylum, while they were overseas. Since the controversy involved in these petitions is similar, the same were taken up together.
2. The relevant facts obtaining in various petitions are briefly stated as under:
2.1 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4574/2014 returned to India on an Emergency Certificate dated 19.04.2012 issued by the Embassy of India, Vienna. On his return, the petitioner applied for a passport, on 28.05.2012, at Passport Office, Chandigarh. By an order dated 03.07.2012, the Regional Passport Officer at Chandigarh rejected the said application and placed the name of the petitioner under the Prior Approval Category (hereafter ‘PAC’) for a period of five years from the date of his return on the ground that the petitioner had made a request to the Government of Austria for political asylum. The said request was, subsequently, rejected by the Austrian Government. By an order dated 05.08.2013, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereafter also referred to as the ‘Act’) impugning the order dated 03.07.2012, was also dismissed by the Chief Passport Officer. The said order dated 05.08.2013 has been impugned by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4574/2014.
2.2 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5480/2014 returned to India on an Emergency Certificate dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Consulate General of India, Frankfurt. On his return, the petitioner applied for a passport, on 23.04.2012, at Passport Office, Jalandhar. By an order dated 21.08.2013, the Passport Officer at Jalandhar rejected the said application and placed the name of the petitioner under the PAC for a period of five years from the date of his return on the ground that the petitioner had made a request to the Government of Germany for a political asylum. The said request was, subsequently, rejected by the German Government. By an order dated 25.04.2014, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act impugning the order dated 21.08.2013, was also dismissed by the Chief Passport Officer. The said order dated 25.04.2014 has been impugned by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5480/2014. It is relevant to note that wife of the petitioner is residing in Germany.
2.3 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7109/2014 returned to India on an Emergency Certificate dated 18.04.2011 issued by the Embassy of India, Vienna. On his return, the petitioner applied for a passport, on 10.05.2011, at Passport Office, Jalandhar. By an order dated 30.11.2012, the Passport Officer at Jalandhar rejected the said application and placed the name of the petitioner under the PAC for a period of five years from the date of his return on the ground that the petitioner had made a request to the Government of Austria for a political asylum. The said request was, subsequently, rejected by the Austrian Government. By an order dated 24.07.2014, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act impugning the order dated 30.11.2012, was also dismissed by the Chief Passport Officer. The said order dated 24.07.2014 has been impugned by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7109/2014. It is relevant to note that the petitioner has stated in the petition that his wife and son are residing in Austria.
3. The orders dated 05.08.2013, 25.04.2014 and 24.07.2014 passed by the Chief Passport Officer rejecting the respective appeals of the petitioners are hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘impugned orders’. The impugned orders indicate that passports were denied to the petitioners, principally, for the reason as contained under Section 6(1)(a) of the Act; that is, “the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to, the sovereignty and integrity of India”.
4. The controversy to be addressed is whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petiti
