Gurcharan Singh Dhaliwal v. Union Of India And Others

VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) This petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises a grievance that the petitioner had applied for re-issue of his passport and on account of an adverse police verification report, the same has not been issued. Thus, a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the passport authority to re-issue passport to the petitioner has been sought.

A perusal of the paper book reveals that a show cause notice dated 30.08.2022, as indicated in the result shown through the status tracker of the website (Annexure P-4) was sent to the petitioner. On a query of the Court, it is disclosed that the said show cause notice has not been responded to as yet. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had been implicated in three FIRs, the details of which have been given in Para 6 of the petition. In one of the cases, i.e. FIR No.2 dated 12.01.2016, the petitioner was convicted and an appeal there against is pending in this Court, whereas in the other two FIRs, the petitioner is still facing trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny that the ground enumerated under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 is attracted in the present conceded factual position, as noticed above. Thus, any direction contrary to statutory provisions is uncalled for. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the observations made in CWP-21203-2022 titled Kishan Pal vs. Union of India and others, decided on 16.09.2022, the petitioner be also granted liberty to approach the concerned criminal Court to avail remedy in terms of the notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. The observations in the said case read as under:

"The Central Government exercising its authority to exempt, by issuing notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 under powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short referred as 'the Act'), has conditionally exempted the citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operations of provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the concerned Court in terms of the notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which reads as under:

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to approach the concerned Court in terms of the notification dated 25.08.1993 (supra).

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Ambika Bedi, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.3, put in appearance and submit in unison that there is no objection to the petitioner taking recourse to remedy provided under law. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.