IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3488 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDURASAK, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SAITHALAVI MATHOOR VALAPPIL HOUSE, KAVANCHERY P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR. C.V.MANUVILSAN MR. P.G.SURESH MS. K.VIDYA MR. RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PASS PORT OFFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 2. THE REGIONAL PASS PORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. MR. P.ALI, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 3488 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The issue involved in this Writ Petition is with regard to the non- renewal of Ext. P1 passport. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, after obtaining the pass port bearing No. A 9515985 from Kozhikode in the year 2001, the petitioner went to Malaysia and later came back to India after expiry of the original tenure of his employment. He again went back abroad in the year 2006 and came back in the year 2010. With an intent to go abroad again, he submitted an application dated 30.09.2010 before the Pass Port Office, Malappuram for renewal of his passport. But his request was not considered doubting the ECNR endorsement (Emigrance Clearance Not Required) as not genuine, which made the petitioner to satisfy a sum of ` 7500/- as penalty under different heads. Explaining the position, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P5 affidavit before the passport authority, stating that, the endorsement was made by the concerned agent at Chennai and that the petitioner was never aware of or connected with the same. W.P. (C) No. 3488 of 2011 2 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have preferred a complaint along with necessary documents before the Commissioner of Police Chennai and are awaiting the report. It is stated that, immediately on receipt of the clarification/report from Chennai, the matter will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in this regard. In the said circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P6 representation preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd