IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 20190 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAJI ARIPPA, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ANANDAN KATTAMPALLY, ARIPPA HOUSE, KOLOLOM, P.O. EDAYANNUR, KANNUR - 670 595. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.P.M.SHIJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, ERANHIPALAM.P.O,KOZHIKODE-673 006. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ADV. SMT.GOVINDA P.RENUKADEVI, CGC FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20190/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT NO.A 2533074 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT 4.8.2010 SWORN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R.P.RAMESAN, ADVOCATE NOTARY. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.12.2010 OF THE 2ND RSPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.4.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD DATED 12.7.11 ISSUED FROM GENERAL HOSPITAL, THALASSERY. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REMINDER DATED 28.6.11 SENTBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY TOKEN WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R1 ANNEXURE R1(a): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(b): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NON RECOMMENDATION LETTER 18/10/2009 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. ANNEXURE R1(c): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT 3/11/2009 AND 2/8/2010. ANNEXURE R1(d): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NON RECOMMENDATION LETTER 20/1/2010 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. ANNEXURE R1(e): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NON RECOMMENDATION LETTER 8/12/2010 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. ANNEXURE R1(f): THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NON RECOMMENDATION LETTER 10/3/11 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20190 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue a fresh passport to him. 2. According to the petitioner, he had an Indian passport bearing No.A 2533074 issued on 18/3/97 which is valid upto 17/3/07. It is stated that, on the strength of the passport, he went to Saudi Arabia in 2000 and returned to India in 2006. It is his case that during his stay in his native place, while travelling from Kannur to Payangadi, he lost his passport and lodged a complaint before the 4th respondent, but however FIR was not registered. 3. Thereafter he made an application for a fresh one and thereupon he was asked to produce FIR showing the loss of the passport. It is stated that thereupon he submitted a fresh complaint to the 4th respondent on 7/6/09. However, realising that certain factual mistakes were committed in the application made, he submitted Ext.P2 affidavit to the 1st respondent. It is stated that on the application and the particulars furnished by the affidavit, police verification was got conducted and that based on WPC No. 20190/11 :2 : the adverse reports submitted by the police, passport was declined to him. It is stated that again the matter was got enquired and Ext.P4 adverse report was received and finally his request for the issuance of the passport did not materialise. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A statement has been filed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. This statement shows that the petitioner made an application for a fresh passport in 2009 and Ext.R1(b) police verification report was obtained on 18/10/09. In this report, passport was not recommended to be issued and the reason stated is that the petitioner had not disclosed about the possession of the previous passport and his travel abroad on the strength of the same. It appears that it was thereafter that Ext.P2 affidavit was filed by the petitioner on the basis of which yet another enquiry was got conducted and Ext.R1(d) report was submitted by the police. Here again, on account of the suppression of facts and the contradictions noticed by the police, they have reported that they suspected that the petitioner is still in possession of the passport, which he claims to have lost. On further representations, Exts.R1(e) and (f) reports were also WPC No. 20190/11 :3 : obtained where again the issuance of passport was not recommended. Therefore, according to the respondents, they only acted upon adverse police reports obtained by them and therefore petitioner could not be issued passport. 5. On a perusal of the materials produced in this Court, the contention of the respondents that some of the factual particulars like the issuance of the previous passport, travel on the strength of the said passport, loss of the passport and such other factual materials have not been properly disclosed by the petitioner in the second application made by him on 11/5/2009, cannot be doubted. However, it is on record that the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 affidavit, which has also been produced by respondents as Ext.R1(c). In the said affidavit, petitioner did disclose that he had a passport issued in 1997, that he had travelled abroad on the basis of the said passport and that he lost the passport in December, 2006 during the course of his journey. Therefore, though belatedly, the petitioner did disclose those facts to the 1st respondent. 6. Although the correctness of these factual claims made by the petitioner are matters for enquiry and verification by the WPC No. 20190/11 :4 : respondents, still it requires to be noticed that the suspicion mentioned in Ext.R1(d) that the petitioner is still in possession of the passport is not supported by any factual materials. That apart, I am also inclined to think that, on the verification reports, authorities do not appear to have given proper consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner for omission of such factual particulars in the application made by him. In such circumstances, I feel that this is a case which requires fresh verification by the 2nd respondent. 7. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will call for a fresh verification report from the 2nd respondent and thereupon the 2nd respondent will conduct a fresh enquiry into the factual claims made by the petitioner and on the basis of the report so submitted, 1st respondent will reconsider the application made by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp