IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31388 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIJI PHILIP CHERAPARAMBIL HOUSE NAGAPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.MARIAMMA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS UNION OF INDIA, 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-14. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.31388 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this court aggrieved by the delay in the issuance of passport in spite of her application dated 21.4.2008. A statement has been filed by the Asst. Solicitor General of India to the following effect. “It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has applied for passport facilities vide File Reference No.B033580/08 dated 21.04.2008. On 10.6.2008, an adverse report was received from Superintendent of Police,Ernakulam Rural, Aluva stating that the applicant was studying and staying at Fathima School of Nursing, Lucknow, from 2001 to 2007 and issue of passport to her was not recommended. The department issued show cause notice on 10.6.2008. The petitioner's explanation along with Personal particulars forms with address in Lucknow was received and the department sent the same for verification to Police Authorities, Lucknow on 07/08/2008. On 21/8/2008 she was interrogated by the Passport Issuing Authority and she admitted that she was working as Staff Nurse at Fathima Hospital, Lucknow from 01/12/2005 to 30/11/2007 and produced a certificate from Fathima Hospital. This suppression of information attracts penalty under Section 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. W.P ( C) No.31388 of 2008 2 The petitioner's application is pending for want of verification report from Police Authorities Lucknow, where she was working and staying prior to her application”. 2. In my view, the passport authority should pass an order if it is not in a position to issue a passport and such order is susceptible to an appeal in terms of the provisions of the Passport Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass order on the petitioner’s application for passport, within two weeks from today and if the Passport Authority rejects the petitioner‘s application, it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the Passports Act. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.31388 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.31388 of 2008 4