SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.
Sukhwinder Ram - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
CWP No. 5991 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ankur Sharma, Advocate and Pankaj Gupta, Addl. Advocate General

The importance of coming to the court with clean hands and disclosing true and complete facts.

Headnote:

Concealment of Facts - Passport Issue - Passport Act, 1967 - Section 11, Section 24 - The court dismissed the petition seeking a writ to set aside the refusal of the passport authorities to re-issue the petitioner's passport. The petitioner had applied for re-issuance of passport by adding the name of his wife, but the passport authorities declined the application citing the pendency of an FIR against the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner had concealed material facts, including filing a fresh application after the refusal order, and requesting the closure of his file. The court emphasized the importance of coming to the court with clean hands and disclosing true and complete facts. The petitioner was advised to seek redressal from the passport authorities in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ to set aside the refusal of the passport authorities to re-issue his passport due to the pendency of an FIR against him. The petitioner had applied for re-issuance of passport by adding the name of his wife.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had concealed material facts, including filing a fresh application after the refusal order, and requesting the closure of his file. The court emphasized the importance of coming to the court with clean hands and disclosing true and complete facts.

Issues: The issues included the refusal of the passport authorities to re-issue the petitioner's passport due to the pendency of an FIR against him, and the petitioner's concealment of material facts from the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of coming to the court with clean hands and disclosing true and complete facts. The petitioner was advised to seek redressal from the passport authorities in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had not disclosed true and complete facts and did not deserve the relief from the court. The petitioner was advised to approach the passport authorities for redressal of his grievance in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.

Through Video Conferencing

CM-4928-CWP-2021

1. Exemption granted, as prayed for.

2. Annexures R-1 and R-2 are taken on record.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CM-4929-CWP-2021

4. This application has been filed for placing on record the short reply by way of affidavit.

5. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. The accompanying short reply by way of affidavit of Purshotam Kumar Padam, Assistant Passport Officer, Jalandhar is taken on record.

Main case

6. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the letter dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-11) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the file submitted by the petitioner has been closed.

7. At the time when notice of motion was issued on 16.03.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had applied to the passport authorities for adding the name of his wife in the passport but the passport authorities vide Annexure P-10 had asked for some more details and documents. He had further submitted that the petitioner had been visiting the passport office number of times and had supplied all the documents but the passport authorities have not considered the same and rather passed an order Annexure P-11 whereby the application has been declined only on the ground that there was no response from the petitioner. He had further categorically submitted that the petitioner visited the passport office number of times but this order has been passed on wrong facts and that since he is working in Italy, he has to leave on 06.04.2021.

8. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had issued notice of motion for 25.03.2021 and Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate had accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Union of India and Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar respectively). The State was also represented by Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Direction was issued to the Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar to file affidavit before the next date of hearing and the learned counsel for the Union of India was also asked to seek instructions that in case the petitioner now supplies all the documents, which are required then whether the impugned order can be reviewed in accordance with law or not. The order of notice of motion is reproduced as under:-

    "Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had applied to the passport authorities for adding the name of his wife in the passport but the passport authorities vide Annexure P-10 had asked for some details and documents. He submits that the petitioner had been visiting the passport office number of times and had supplied all the documents but the passport authorities have not considered the same and rather passed an order Annexure P-11 whereby his application has been declined only on the ground that there was no response from the petitioner.

Learned counsel has categorically submitted that he has visited the passport office number of times but this order has been passed on wrong facts. He has further submitted that the petitioner is working in Italy and he has to leave for Italy on 6.4.2021 for the said purpose and therefore, there is urgency in the matter.

Notice of motion for 25.3.2021.

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

On asking of the Court, Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Let Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar, Punjab, file affidavit before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for Union of India would also seek instructions that in case the petitioner now supplies all the documents which are required then whether the impugned order can be reviewed in accorda

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top