IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition No.41220 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 V.A.Riyasudeen ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 23, Haddows Road, Chennai-34. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, Coimbatore-18. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order dated 19.04.2006 issued by the first respondent in File No.MAS/POL/0086/04 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue passport to the petitioner on his application dated 04.09.2005. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Wilson, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for R.1 Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP for R.2 O R D E R The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 19.04.2006 with a further direction directing the first respondent to issue Passport to the petitioner on his application dated 04.09.2005. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows:- (a) The petitioner is a Computer Hardware and Network Engineer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Since his income is very meagre, which is not sufficient to provide comforts to his family members, he has decided to go abroad to earn money. Hence, he had applied for Passport before the first respondent on 04.09.2003. By a letter dated 14.01.2004, the first respondent informed him that since the second respondent brought it to his notice that the petitioner is a member of TMMK (Tamilnadu Muslims Munnetra Kalagam) and an active member of Manitha Neethi Paasarai and a supporter of Islamic Fundamentalist group "Vidiyal Velli", the issuance of Passport was not recommended. The first respondent requested the petitioner to forward the enclosed personal particulars forms duly filled with his explanation for re-verification. (b) After receiving the said letter, the petitioner has sent a detailed explanation to the second respondent refuting the allegations made against him. He had also assured to come to the second respondent office at any time regarding verification. But he did not receive any reply or communication from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11977 of 2005 seeking a direction directing the respondents to issue Passport to him on the basis of the application dated 04.09.2003 made to the second respondent. But, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the counsel could not appear before this Court. But, however, this Court had directed the first respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 04.09.2003 and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. (c) Thereafter, the first respondent by letter dated 15.07.2005 informed him that the issuance of the Passport to him was not recommended by the second respondent and the grant of Passport facilities will be extended to him only on receipt of the clear police verification report. The first respondent also asked him to furnish his explanation in the matter along with two personal particulars forms duly filled by him to enable the first respondent office to forward the same to the second respondent. The petitioner sent a detailed representation dated 04.11.2005 to the first respondent along with two personal particulars forms duly filled in as called for and requested by them to provide the Passport facilities. However, by letter dated 19.04.2006, the first respondent office informed him that since the second respondent by his letter dated 02.12.2003 had not recommended the issuance of Passport to him and the District Collector has also not recommended, it has been decided to refuse the Passport facilities to him under Section 6 (2) (b) (c) (d) and (i) of the Passport Act, 1967. The rejection of the Passport facilities by the first respondent is illegal. Hence, challenging the same, the present writ petition had been filed. 3. Counter affidavit had been filed by the first respondent wherein the following facts have been set out:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) On receipt of the application for issuance of Passport, police verification has been sought for and the police report is adverse to the petitioner and hence, an explanation was sought for from the petitioner along with two personal particulars forms to enable the first respondent to make re-verification as there is no specific charge against him. The petitioner furnished two personal particulars forms without any explanation. Again adverse report has been received from the police authorities stating that the issuance of Passport is not recommended. (b) While pending the first application, the petitioner submitted another application for issuance of Passport suppressing the material information regarding his earlier application made to the District Passport Cell, Coimbatore and the adverse police report. In the present application also, the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, had sent the same adverse remarks and he had not recommended for the issuance of Passport to the petitioner. In the meantime, an order of this Court dated 22.06.2005 made in W.P.No.1197 of 2005 had been received to consider the application of the petitioner dated 04.09.2003. On receipt of the said order, a detailed letter was issued on 15.07.2005 informing the petitioner that the Passport will be issued only on receipt of clear police verification report and also called for explanation as to why he had not furnished his explanation for the respondents' notice dated 28.04.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the first respondent office on 06.01.2006 and submitted a copy of his explanation dated 04.11.2005, which was not received by the office earlier. (c) The matter was referred to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, on 08.02.2006 requesting him to re-verify and send their comments in the matter for which no reply has been received by the first respondent. Since report has not been received from him, the matter had been referred to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, who is the appellate authority in the matter of issuance of Passport. After receipt of the prior approval from the Ministry of External Affairs, Passport facilities had been refused to the petitioner. The refusal had been made inconsonance with Section 6 (2) (b) (c) (d) and (i) of the Passports Act, 1967. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he could have filed an appeal before the Central Government as provided under Section 11 of the Act. Without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit had been filed by the second respondent wherein the following facts have been set out:- The issuance of Passport to the petitioner was not recommended by the second respondent in view of the fact that the petitioner was a member of Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kalagam, an active member of "Manitha https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Neethi Paasarai" and a supporter of "Vidiyal Velli". As the investigating agency, it is duty bound to place the entire investigation report before the first respondent to arrive at a correct and proper conclusion. Hence, a confidential enquiry through the intelligence section of the second respondent was conducted, which revealed the relationship and the active participation of the petitioner in the above organisations. Thus, the said counter affidavit seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. They have made their submissions on the basis of the affidavit and counter affidavits respectively. 6. The petitioner herein challenging the order of the first respondent dated 19.04.2006 refusing to issue Passport to him, has filed the present writ petition. The necessity for refusal has arisen to the first respondent in view of the adverse report sent by the second respondent. The first respondent has not unilaterally taken any decision, but, however, he relied on the report of the second respondent. Section 5 (2) of the Passports Act 1967, (hereafter called as the Act) specifically states that on receipt of the application, the Passport Authorities after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, issue Passport or refuse to issue Passport. Thus, nothing could be faulted against the act of the first respondent seeking verification from the police authorities. 7. The second respondent made a detailed enquiry about the petitioner and the report of the Commissioner of Coimbatore revealed that the petitioner involved himself in certain organisations. The report of the Commissioner of Coimbatore, which has been extracted in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, is re-produced here under:- " (a) Report of Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore No.6309/DPC/is/03: Applicant is TMMK Member and also an active member in 'Manita Neethi Psarai' and as supporter of a Islamic fundamentalist group 'Vidiyal Velli'. Hence the issue of Passport is not recommended. (b) Report of the Inspector of Police, Intelligence Section, Coimbatore:- On Intelligence point of view the character and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ antecedence of the applicant Shri Riyasudeen is not satisfactory. (c) Report of the District Magistrate and Collector, Coimbatore:- Issue of Passport is not recommended for the above reasons. Thus, the first respondent was constrained to refuse the issuance of Passport to the petitioner in view of the adverse comments against the petitioner. 8. Section 6 of the Act contemplates on what grounds refusal can be made. Section 6 of the Act is extracted here under:- " 6. Refusal of Passports, travel documents, etc. :- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no other ground, namely:- (a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (c) that the presence of the applicant in such country, may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country ; (d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:- (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years: (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. Thus, the first respondent considering the entire aspects, refused to issue Passport to the petitioner and nothing could be faulted against the first respondent. Further more, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy by filing an appeal under Section 11 of the said Act and the same has not been exhausted by him. 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to set aside the order of the first respondent dated 19.04.2006 refusing to issue Passport to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sbi To 1.The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, 23, Haddows Road, Chennai-34. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office, Coimbatore-18. +1cc to Mr.K.Thilageswaran, Advocate Sr 35756 +1cc to Mr.P.Wilson, Advocate Sr 35880 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 36105 GR (CO) km/23.7. W.P.No.41220 of 2006 and M.P.1 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/