AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This application is filed for condoning the delay of 2967 days in filing this appeal against order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in IA 1239/2016 in OA 308/2016.
The 1st Respondent, Punjab National Bank filed IA 1239/2016 seeking direction to Respondents 2 and 3 in the IA, to hand over their passport to the Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore, failing which they will impound their passport, and direct the Regional Passport Officer, Coimbatore to make necessary entries in the Register to that effect.
The Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore passed the following order:
“Therefore, having taken into consideration of the liabilities, this Tribunal is of the view that the apprehensions expressed by the Applicant Bank have to be countenanced and it shall be dispelled. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that if a limited conditional order is passed against the Respondents, it would meet the interest of justice and natural justice. Accordingly, the Petitioner/Applicant Bank is directed to approach the Regional Passport Officer of Chennai/Coimbatore, or any other office/officer who are the competent authority to impound the passport of the Respondents, as the case may be, and submit all the materials pertaining to the Respondents before such authority and explain the implications in detail and make a request to the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai/Coimbatore or any other office/officer under S.10(3)(h) of the Pass Port Act, 1967, and the Regional Passport officer in turn is required to peruse the materials placed before the authority, and to pass appropriate orders to impound the passports of the Respondents, which are more fully described in the schedule of this Petition, at their discretion on production of the copy of this Order, so as to bring the Respondents to face the legal proceedings initiated against them for their liability/default, after taking into consideration of involvement of the public money in this proceedings. The Petitioner/Applicant Bank and the Regional Passport Authority / Passport officer / Chennai/Coimbatore or any other Office/Officer, who are the competent authority to impound the passport, as the case may be, are directed to act accordingly and I.A. No.1239/2016 is ordered accordingly. No costs. The Registry is directed to furnish the copy of the order to the Petitioner/Applicant Bank free of cost for the purpose of complying with the directions issued by this Tribunal supra.”
Against this order, this appeal is filed.
It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Learned Presiding Officer had only directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider and pass orders with regard to impounding the passports on the basis of the claim made by the 1st Respondent Bank. Therefore, the Petitioners thought that only after passing of orders by the Regional Passport Officer, that the cause of action would arise for filing the appeal.
She further submitted that after the Regional Passport Officer passed the order on 7.12.2023, Petitioners approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WP No.550/2024 challenging the order passed by the Passport Authority on 7.12.2023. The Hon'ble High Court gave liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate authority to challenge the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in a manner known to the law and the period from 9.1.2024 until the receipt of order copy will be considered for exclusion from computing the limitation period. Then the petitioner opted to file an appeal before the appropriate forum against the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore. Therefore, there is a delay in filing this appeal.
In reply, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that there is no reason sufficient enough to condone the huge delay is given in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed for condoning the delay. The delay is huge and, therefore, it is not condonable.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
As already stated, this appeal is filed primarily to challenge the order dated 4.5.2017 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in IA 1239/2016. When the Petitioner is aggrieved against this order, the appeal ought to have been filed within the period of limitation. However, it is filed with a huge delay of 2967 days.
It is seen from the order passed by the Regional Passport Authority on 7.12.2023 that the Authority, taking note of the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, passed the following order:
“NOW THEREFORE, I, Shri. Sathish K S, Passport Issuing Authroity after considering the facts and hearing the parties involved pass the following order –
1.The issuance of passport facilities to Smt. Vimala Radhakrishnan is refused under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 based on the DRT order dated 04.05.2016.
2.The impounding of the passport of Smt. Vimala Radhakrishnan does not arise as the Passport No J8583919 was already expired on 13.9.2022.
3.The Passport renewal application of Smt. Vimala Radhakrishnan vide file no. CB1074551404922 dated 02.09.2022 will be closed.”
From this order, it can be gathered that when considering the issue of impounding the passport, the Passport Authority recorded that the impounding of passport does not arise since the passport expired on 13.9.2022. It was also stated that the issuance of passport facilities to Smt. Vimala Radhakrishnan is refused under Section 6 of the Passport Act based on the orders of DRT, Coimbatore on 4.5.2017. Accordingly, passport renewal application will be ordered to be closed. Only against this order, WP 550/2025 was filed by the 2nd Petitioner, Mrs. Vimala Radhakrishnan.
In the said WP 550/2025, Hon'ble High Court gave liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the order of the DRT, Coimbatore before the DRAT, after condoning the delay from 9.1.2024 till the copy of the order is received. There is no indication to condone the delay that had happened prior to 9.1.2024 i.e., from the date of passing of orders in IA 1239/2016 on 4.5.2017 till 8.1.2024.
As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank, the delay in filing the appeal is so huge and not supported by any valid and sufficient reasons.
Therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to condone the huge delay in the absence of sufficient and acceptable reasons.
In this view of the matter, IA 1187/2025 (Delay) is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal No. AIR 1406/2025 is rejected.