IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20792 of 2010(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.P. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KAVIL VEEDU, THIRUTTIKARA P.O., KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.C.SINOY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, S.N.S.M.BUILDING, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-24. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20792 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had a passport. In the application filed for obtaining that passport the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that a criminal case is pending against him. Proceedings were initiated and the passport was impounded. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as penalty under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passport Act and Rs.1,000/- for suppression of material facts. Petitioner paid the same. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P9 the petitioner was informed by the Passport Officer that, once the petitioner pays the said amounts, passport would be issued to the petitioner. But now by Ext.P11, the petitioner has been directed to file a fresh application for passport. Petitioner is challenging the same. The petitioner now submits that after having informed the petitioner by Ext.P9 that once the amounts of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- are paid W.P.(C)No. 20792 of 2010 -2- petitioner would be issued with a passport, the passport officer cannot go back on the same and insist on filing a fresh application. 2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that although by Ext.P9 the petitioner has been informed so, as per rule, only a fresh application can be considered. 3. Having heard both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If the petitioner files a fresh application for passport, the same would be considered and orders passed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/