Arshdeep Singh v. Union Of India And Others

CWP-29982-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (112) CWP-29982-2024 Date of decision:- 07.11.2024 Arshdeep Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Ms. Madhu Bala, Advocate, for Mr. Jagmeet Singh Moudgill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 - Union of India.

Mr. Brijesh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ...

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral) 1.

By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 and 2, to re-issue a fresh passport to him.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner possessed a passport, which was valid till 23.10.2027, but it was misplaced, and a Lost Information Report was lodged on 17.06.2024, Annexure P-2. Counsel submits that petitioner applied for re-issuance of a passport on 10.07.2024, Annexure P3, and by show cause notices, Annexures P-4 and P-5, respondents No. 1 and 2, sought information from the petitioner, as they have found that the petitioner PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.07 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-29982-2024 -2has been named as an accused in case FIR No.38, dated 11.03.2024, Annexure P-1, lodged for offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 427, IPC, at Police Station Sadar Samana, District Patiala.

3.

Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the respondents. 4.

Upon instructions, counsel representing respondents No. 1 and 2, submits that despite issuance of the show cause notices, Annexure P-4 and P-5, petitioner has not responded, but counsel for the petitioner has contradicted him.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted some more time to respond to the notices, for which purpose, time is extended by a period of 15 days, from today.

6.

Irrespective of the fact that whether the petitioner responds or not, respondent No. 2, cannot keep the application, Annexure P-3, pending for months. Accordingly, a direction is issued to respondent No. 2, to decide the application, Annexure P-3, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.

In case respondents No. 1 and 2, find that the application deserves to be rejected, a reasoned order for rejection, shall be passed and supplied to the petitioner.

8.

Petition is disposed of.

(SUVIR SEHGAL) 07.11.2024 JUDGE Pardeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes/No PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.07 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.