1. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for grant of passport in order to pursue his studies outside the Country. It is contended that respondent No. 2 failed to issue the passport in favour of the petitioner, which compelled him to seek indulgence of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing OWP No. 413/2011. However, it is contended that during the pendency of the writ petition aforementioned, respondent No. 2 issued a passport under No. K1879755 in favour of the petitioner, for a short period of one year commencing 04th October, 2011 to 3rd October, 2012.

2. The writ petition (OWP No. 413/2011), accordingly, came to be disposed of by the Court, observing as under:

"Mr. Zargar learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 & 2 states that passport has been sent to the petitioner on 13th of October, 2011, It being so, nothing survives for consideration.

Petition accordingly disposed of alongwith connected CMP."

3. It is further submitted that, after obtaining the passport from respondent No. 2, petitioner got admission in International Islamic University, Malaysia for undergoing a programme of Bachelor of Information Technology. It is averred in the writ Course is four years. -

4. It is specifically mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner has submitted an application to India Passport and Other Consular Services, High Commission of India, Malaysia for granting extension in the term of his passport or issuing a fresh passport in his favour, which as per the contention of petitioner has been received on 29.06.2012.

5. It is further stated in the writ petition that neither any extension was granted in the life of the passport of the petitioner nor a fresh passport was issued in his favour by the respondents leaving him high and dry in a foreign country. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file another writ petition before this Court which was registered as OWP No. 950/2012 praying therein that the respondent No. 2 be directed to extend the life of the passport granted in favour of the petitioner or issue a fresh passport in his favour so as to enable him to pursue his ongoing course at Malaysia.

6. While considering the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition therein, the Court disposed of the said writ petition in the following terms:

"For the aforestated reasons, this petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 3 to ensure submission of requisite CID report to the Passport Authority positively within a period of two weeks from the date copy of the order is served and thereafter respondent-Passport Authority shall take decision for extension of life of passport of the petitioner within one week. In case of default on the part of respondent No. 3 in submission of verification report within two weeks, the respondent-Passport Authority, in view of the law laid down in the judgment as quoted, shall take decision for extension of life of passport of the petitioner and shall accordingly apprise the respondent No. 4 (High Commission of India, Malaysia) about the decision so taken."

7. It is contended that after receiving the judgement aforementioned, the respondents were required to extend the term of the passport in favour of the petitioner at least for a period of four years so as to enable him to complete the Course at Malaysia. It is further contended that instead of doing so, the respondents issued a short term passport again for one year only which period is expiring on 02.09.2013. Aggrieved by this act of respondents, it is contended that the maternal uncle of the petitioner filed an application before the Passport Authority at Srinagar for extension of full term passport in favour of the petitioner because of the fact that the short term passport is going to adversely affect the studies of the petitioner.

8. What is seen is that instead of renewing the passport in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 in ter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document