High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPCR/64/2020disposed off

Neelam Chandrakar v. Union Of India

2020-03-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 64 of 2020 Neelam Chandrakar, S/o Babulal Chandrakar, Aged about 43 years, R/o H.No. 154, Purana Bazar chowk, kurud, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India, through its secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, South Block, New Delhi.

2. Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 1st Floor, Commercial Complex Sector 4, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent 1 :- Mr. Vaibhav Shukla on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Asst. S.G.

For State :- Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 04/03/2020

1. Heard.

2. Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the

petitioner has filed an application for renewal of his passport, but it has not been properly considered taking into account that Crime No. 45/15 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 342, 294, 506 and 427 of the IPC has been registered against him, but the trial Court and the revisional Court have neither considered the decision of this Court passed in WPC No. 2567/2019 on 13/08/2009, nor have they considered the notification issued by the Central Government on 25/08/1993.

3. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that petitioner's application has already been rejected.

4. Be that as it may, the competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the notification dated 25/08/1993 issued by the Central Government and the decision rendered by this Court in WPC No. 2567/2019 by order dated 13/08/2009 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being prejudiced by its earlier order duly affirmed by the revisional Court.

5. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet