Mahipal Singh vs Union Of India & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the communication dated 22.01.2021 issued by respondent no.2 (contained as

Annexure no.1 to this writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to issue the passport to the petitioner.

Petitioner is challenging a communication issued to him on 22.01.2021, which reads as under:-

“BL1065191448621:

Police has submitted

Adverse report for your

Current Address.â€​

According to the petitioner, his application for passport has been wrongly rejected based on an F.I.R., which has been registered against him under

Sections 323, 498-A and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Regional Passport Authority could not have refused to issue

passport to the petitioner only on the basis of an F.I.R. and such refusal could have been justified only if the police upon investigation had filed a

charge-sheet in the competent court of law.

A counter affidavit has been filed by Regional Passport Officer, Dehradun, District Dehradun. Paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the said counter affidavit

are reproduced below:-

“5. That it is respectfully submitted here that as per the averments made in the instant writ petition the petitioner has applied the passport from

Bareilly Passport Office and same was submitted offline on 04.02.2021. Therefore the PIA i.e. Passport Issuing Authority is Bareilly Passport Office

which has not been arrayed as party in the instant writ petition.

That it is also relevant to mention here that the order of communication dated 21.01.2021 wherein the reference of file no.BL1065191448621 has

been given and shown adverse police report of the applicant, same does not relate to the office of the answering respondent.â€​

Thus, the stand taken by the Regional Passport Officer, Dehradun, in his counter affidavit, is that since petitioner had applied to Bareilly Passport

Office and not to Dehradun Passport Office and the refusal to issue passport to the petitioner is by the Regional Passport Office, Bareilly, therefore,

this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present writ petition. This Court finds substance in the preliminary objection raised by

respondent no.2.

Since petitioner had applied to Regional Passport Office, Bareilly, and refusal to issue passport to the petitioner is by the Regional Passport Office,

Bareilly, therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the

petitioner to approach appropriate forum.

No order as to costs.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.