AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Rao, J.—As both the writ appeal and the writ petition are interlinked the same are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner is a practising advocate of this Court. He obtained a passport bearing No. B 182627 with a view to settling down in Newzealand to seek better prospects. It so happened, according to him, he lost that passport on 15-6-1993 when he was taking the same to a photocopier for obtaining copies. He also claims that as he did not have the particulars of the lost passport and as he was eager to go to Newzealand, instead of lodging a complaint with the police that he lost the passport and thus set in motion the prescribed procedure for obtaining a duplicate passport, he thought it expedient to resort to a short-cut method by applying for a fresh passport which work he entrusted to a travel agent. In column 15 of the application against the question "Did the applicant ever hold a passport/ travel document or apply for it?, the answer ''Yes'' was struck off and what remained was the answer ''No'' which dearly implied that he did not at any time in the past apply for a passport/travel document. Basing upon the information furnished by him in the application for second passport the authority concerned granted him the passport bearing No. Q 377444 on 12-10-1993. As he obtained sponsorship forms from the United States for a visiting visa he had to approach the passport authorities for a police clearance certificate. Presumably by then the whole data was computerised by the passport office. It then came to light that he obtained an earlier passport bearing No. B 182627 which information he withheld in the second application.
A show-cause notice was issued to him by the passport officer on 11-7-1994 u/s 10 (3)(b) calling upon him ''to explain the circumstances under which you have suppressed the material information to this office and obtained the second passport". He was also called upon to surrender his passport along with the explanation. Instead of submitting an explanation the petitioner filed an affidavit before the Passport Officer in which after setting out the details as to how he lost the first passport he averred:
"Suppression of the fact that I was holding a passport previously in the year 1991 while applying for the new passport is neither intentional nor wanton and only due to the non-awareness of the due procedure to be followed while applying for a passport afresh and also due to the fact that I am not having any particulars of the lost passport."
After considering the contents of the affidavit the Passport Officer passed an order on 22-7-1994 in Ref. No. 28 (306)/Pol/94/3/15705/94 revoking both the passports u/s 10 (3) (b) of the Passports Act, 1967. By the same order the petitioner was also informed that an appeal would lie against the order to the Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, within thirty days from the date of its receipt.
Without preferring the statutory appeal as ordained by Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 the petitioner filed the present writ petition - WP No. 16828 of 1994 - and sought a direction for issuance of passport without making any entries so that he may obtain visa to go to other countries. The learned single Judge allowed that interlocutory application by granting a direction to the Passport Officer to issue the passport No. Q.377444 dated 12-10-1993 to the petitioner without making any entries amounting to disability for obtaining visa to other countries, pending further orders on this petition". Aggrieved by that the Passport Officer filed Writ Appeal No. 1505 of 1995.
When the matter came up for admission on the last occasion we thought that it would be expedient to dispose of the main writ petition itself instead of deciding the question involved in the writ appeal. Accordingly, both the writ appeal and the writ petition have been listed before us.
The facts as stated by us supra are uncontroversial. Section 10(3)(b), which confers power on the passport authority to impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or a travel document is in the following terms:
"10 (3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document,-
(a) .....
(b) if the passport or travel document was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf."
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no wilful suppression of any material information or furnishing of wrong information deliberately by the petitioner. Due to a genuine lack of understanding of the procedure and also because of the absence of the details concerning the first passport coupled with the failure on the part of the travel agent to apprise him of the correct procedure, the petitioner made an application for a second passport. Shri Murthy, learned standing counsel for the Central Government, in opposition to this, contends that whether the petitioner had any intention to suppress any material information or deliberately he had furnished wrong information are all matters exclusively within the purview of the appellate authority which will take into consideration the fact-situation and, therefore, this Court should not go into these questions.
As the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy prescribed by the statute we are not inclined to go into the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it appears to be a case of the petitioner being misled by the travel agent and he was not in a position to lodge a complaint with the police about the loss of the passport as he was not aware of the details of the lost passport. We are sure, the appellate authority will take these circumstances into consideration coupled with the fact that the petitioner is an advocate who intends to settle down abroad to better his prospects. Within two weeks from to-day the petitioner shall prefer an appeal to the appellate authority and within six weeks after the receipt of the appeal it shall be disposed of by the appellate authority without going into the question of limitation.
The writ petition and the writ appeal are disposed of with the above directions.