ORDER :

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. Referring to the list of documents filed by Delhi Police on 05.12.2018, Mr. Pahwa, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits, that at page 5 of the said document, oddly cases against Ansal Properties have been listed. The examination in the present case is apropos one Sushil Ansal and the issuance of a passport to him by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Delhi. Mr. Trideep Pais, the learned counsel for R-2/Delhi Police seeks time to file an affidavit through the ACP concerned apropos the documents filed and to bring better particulars on record, especially in view of the submission made by Mr. Pahwa that cases against Sushil Ansal have been pending since 1997, and even subsequent thereto many other criminal proceedings were initiated against Sushil Ansal. These cases too should have been mentioned in the list of cases against the said person as being prior to 2012.

2. Mr. Pais, further submits that proceedings have been initiated against three police officers who had given the Police Verification Report dated 22.10.2013 in favour of respondent no. 4. The officers whose signatures are on the Police Verification Report have been called for questioning by Delhi Police. Two of the said officers have since retired. Nevertheless, the Police are stated to be looking into the matter in right earnest. They seek two days' time to file a Status Report with all requisite particulars.

3. Mr. Pahwa draws the Court's attention to the application filed by Sushil Ansal, especially regarding information on Report of Delhi Police, to the effect that no criminal proceedings were pending against him in any criminal court or that he has not travelled abroad. The police report also certified that the applicant has not travelled outside the country, but in fact, he had travelled outside the country. Information furnished by R-4 against queries 5 to 9 are in the negative. These queries are as under:

4. Ms. Rebecca John, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent no. 4 submits that as of that date no criminal cases were pending against the applicant.

5. The issue that needs to be examined is how could Delhi Police certify that Sushil Ansal had never travelled abroad. Let these aspects be looked into and a detailed affidavit be filed by the ACP concerned.

6. Sushil Ansal was issued a passport in the year 2013 on a tatkaal application. The tatkaal scheme was framed by the Government of India for issuance of passport on an urgent basis. The said Scheme is not under challenge. The requisite information under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 (Act) can be modified by the Government of India in exercise of its powers under section 22 of the Act. On 25.08.1993 a Gazette Notification was issued by the Government, modifying the requirements under section 6(2)(f) of the Act. Since the tatkaal scheme is for issuance of a passport on an urgent basis, it relies to a large extent, on the police report to be furnished by the police station having jurisdiction over the residence of the applicant. A standard format affidavit is required to be filed by the applicant. Accordingly GSR 570 (E) : MANU/EXAF/0006/1993 was published in the Extraordinary Gazette. The Government was of the opinion that it was necessary in public interest to exempt citizens of India, against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged