IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15449 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POULIN DUNSTON,S/O.POULIN JOSEPH, AGED 38 YRS, SHANE LAND, MARIANAD, PUTHUKURICHY P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695303 BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, MINSTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFIRS(CPV DIVISION) PATIALA HOUSE,NEW DELHI-110001 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, SNAM BUILDING,KARALKADA JUNCTION, KAITHMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695024 ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15449 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN PASSPORT NO.G 6831522 DATED 2.4.08 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.H - 17773/10 DATED 13.5.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.10. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFICE HAVING NO.TVM/H 17773/10 (POLICY) 2010 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9.7.10 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER NO.VIII/402/APP-160/10 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.10 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.TVMH 17773/10 DATED 20.12.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (true copy) P.A To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).15449/2011 ....................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that the application preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a passport was not properly dealt with by the second respondent stating that the petitioner possessed another passport earlier and hence, the petitioner was not entitled to have the passport as sought for. The circumstances under which there happened to be another passport has been sought to be explained by the petitioner as “one sought for the petitioner's brother” years back under some compelling circumstances, discussion of which is not much necessary. 2. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. After considering the merits involved, the said appeal was allowed, on condition that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.8,000/- as 'fine' furnishing necessary particulars; on which event, the same was directed to be considered for W.P.(C).15449/11 2 issuance of a new passport on satisfying the norms as prescribed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the above order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has satisfied the 'fine' of Rs.8,000/- as borne by Ext.P7 receipt; despite which the proceedings are not being finalised by the second respondent, thus driving the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is still to satisfy the requirements by furnishing the relevant particulars and that he may submit a fresh application showing the actual name and such other details so as to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders. 5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application showing the correct particulars, for issuance of the passport, also satisfying the requirements as W.P.(C).15449/11 3 specified in Ext.P6; on which event, same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed for issuing a new passport, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'four weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs