W.P. No. 7330/2008 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava W.P. No. 7330/2008 ....PETITIONER: Babulal Baghel, son of Late Shri Rama Baghel, Rani aged about 61 years, Durgavati Ward, Seoni, District Seoni (M.P.) Versus ....RESPONDENTS:1. The State of M.P., through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. Superintendent of Police, Seoni District Seoni (M.P.) 3. Government of India, through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 4. Passport Officer, Govt. of India, Passport Office, 2nd Floor, Gangotri Complex, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Arjaria, Advocate Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate Respondents 3 & 4 : Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (12/01/2011) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call all the original records of the respondents. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to issue passport to the petitioner in the interest of justice. W.P. No. 7330/2008 -2- (iii) Any other relief deemed fit and proper may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to obtain passport requisite application form (Annexure P-1) was submitted on 11.6.2007 but it was returned to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 on the ground that a photocopy has been submitted and the original format be submitted, as a result of which the petitioner submitted the requisite form on 4.12.2007. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in clause-17 of the requisite form, correctly he supplied information but despite it the respondent No.4 is not issuing the passport to the petitioner. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be allowed and respondent No.4 be directed to issue the requisite passport to the petitioner. 3. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that on seeking information by respondent No.4 from respondent No.2, necessary information was supplied that several cases were pending against the petitioner and in one case he was convicted for a period of two months along with fine and he is a history sheeter. The other necessary information has been provided in Annexure R-3 annexed to the return filed by respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Shri Sausarkar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 has submitted that since the petitioner is a convicted person, therefore, the passport cannot be issued to him and in this respect learned counsel has invited my attention to Section 5(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 (in short “the Act”). W.P. No. 7330/2008 -3- 5. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. On bare perusal of the format Annexure P-1 and P-2 this Court finds that in the requisite column 17(a) to (f) specifically it has been mentioned that they are not applicable. On bare perusal of Clause 17(a) it is gathered that the petitioner was required to furnish details whether he had been convicted at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of the application by any Court of India for any criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more and if the answer is affirmative then he is required to give name of the Court, case number and relevant section of law and further the petitioner was required to attach a copy of the judgment of the Court. In front of this column the petitioner wrote “NOT APPLICABLE”. In Clause 17(b) further information was to be supplied by the petitioner that in case any criminal proceedings pending against him in any Court of India, he is required to give case number and relevant section of law. In this column also the petitioner wrote “NOT APPLICABLE”. Clause 17(c) pertains to the query that if answer in column 17(b) is in 'Yes', the petitioner was required to furnish 'No Objection Certificate' from competent court for grant of passport. The petitioner again wrote in the requisite column “NOT APPLICABLE”. 7. On bare perusal of the documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 submitted by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondent No.4 nowhere it is gathered that the petitioner has been either convicted for any offence during the period of five years W.P. No. 7330/2008 -4- immediately preceding the date of submission of the application for two years or more nor any case is pending against him. Hence, according to me, there is no hurdle for issuing the passport to him. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 could not point out how and in what manner Section 5(2) of the Act is applicable against the petitioner debarring him to obtain the passport. On bare perusal of documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 filed along with the return by the State of Madhya Pradesh this Court does not find that the case of the petitioner would come within the purview of Section 5(2) of the aforesaid Act nor the information which has been supplied by him in Clause 17(a) to 17(c) is incorrect and therefore, according to me, under the law there is no bar to provide the requisite passport to the petitioner. 9. For the reasons stated herein-above, I am of the view that respondent No.4 has acted in arbitrary manner in not issuing the passport to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly allowed and respondent No.4 is hereby directed to issue the requisite passport to the petitioner. No order as to costs. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE S/