LPA No. 535 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 535 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 12, 2011 Lakhwinder Singh …Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for UOI-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondent No. 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 28.01.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuance of passport. According to the learned Single Judge, the delay caused in issuance of passport was not material and the apprehension of the appellant that he was likely to be denied passport, was unfounded. It has further been held that the passport was not denied and the police authorities were in the LPA No. 535 of 2011 -2- process of concluding the verification. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court directed the respondent-State of Haryana to send the report of Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra vide order dated 31.05.2011. Accordingly, a statement was made on 01.06.2011 that the report in fact had already been sent to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh on 28.04.2011 and delay, if any, in submitting the report to the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh was procedural and not intentional. According to the report, the name of the appellant was continued to be on the Surveillance List of CID. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 03.06.2011 to enable respondent Nos.1 and 2 to examine the case of the appellant in the light of the report sent by the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra and the matter was posted for hearing on 05.07.2011. 3. Keeping in view the nature of the issue we directed the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh to appear in person and explain the delay of one month in taking the decision as per direction issued on 03.06.2011. In pursuance of the order dated 05.07.2011, Mr. Vitul Kumar, Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh appeared in person and undertook to pass order on or before 11.07.2011. 3. At the time of hearing today, Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has placed before us a letter dated 11.07.2011, which is addressed by the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh to the Assistant Solicitor General stating that he has decided to issue a passport No. J-6590206 to the appellant. In LPA No. 535 of 2011 -3- fact, passport has been issued on 11.07.2011. A copy of the communication is taken on record as mark 'A' along with other communication dated 08.07.2011 where decision has been conveyed to the appellant. 4. In view of the above, the appeal has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 12, 2011 Atul