IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7010 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEVAKI NANDAN SINGHAL @ D.N.SINGHAL, AGED 62, S/O.LATE C.L.SINGHAL, 44/870, LFC ROAD, NIVYA NAGAR, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COCHIN CITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA, 8/1498 (OLD NO. 8/557), C.D.GUJARATI ROAD, MATTANCHERRY P.O., KOCHI-2. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.7010 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims that, he had applied for a passport, but however, the same has not been issued, since the police verification report has not been forwarded by the 2nd respondent. The reason according to the petitioner is that he is an accused in Crime No.105/04, registered in the Central Police Station, Ernakulam pursuant to the complaint of the 4th respondent. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that, initially a verification report was received, but in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid crime, his case was not recommended for issuing the passport. It is also stated that an additional report was called for and that the same is awaited. WP(c).No.7010/09 2 3. Petitioner submits that he has already settled the dispute with the 4th respondent and that by Ext.P3, the fact of settlement of the dispute also has been reported to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that therefore there is no necessity to decline passport on the ground that the crime registered at the instance of the 4th respondent is still pending. 4. It may be true that the petitioner has settled the dispute with the 4th respondent and therefore there is no necessity to proceed with the crime No.105/04 referred to above. But then the fact remains that, even as at present, the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.105/04. If that be so, the respondents cannot be faulted for declining passports in view of the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. 5. Since the petitioner submits that he and the 4th respondent have already submitted Ext.P3 to the 3rd respondent, I direct the 3rd respondent to take necessary action on Ext.P3, if the same has been received. The final WP(c).No.7010/09 3 decision that is taken on Ext.P3, which will certainly have an impact on the proceedings in Crime No.105/2004, the second respondent shall thereafter make necessary verification report to the first respondent, so that the first respondent can take further action on the application made by the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondents 2 and 3 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.7010/09 4