IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 8760 of 2008(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ABDULLA, AGED 63, S/O.MAMMAD PULINHOLIL MEETHEL HOUSE P.O., ANIYARAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA TO BE REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 8760 OF 2008 - P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he made Ext. P2 application to the 2nd respondent for the issue of a passport. According to him, that application was declined to be considered for the reason that, prior to the submission of Ext. P2, petitioner had applied for a passport in 1979 and a passport was issued to him. According to the petitioner on the expiry of that passport he had submitted an application for its renewal before the Passport Authority, Chennai which issued the passport and that the same was misplaced at the office of its issue. 2. Since the respondents declined to consider Ext. P2 application for the reason that the petitioner had not disclosed the details of his previous passport, this Court passed an order dated 4.6.2008 directing the Asst. Solicitor General to obtain information W.P.(C) No. 8760 OF 2008 -2- regarding the petitioner's earlier passport from the Madras Passport Office and furnish the same to the petitioner. When the matter came up today for consideration, on instructions, it is submitted on behalf of the Asst. Solicitor General that the details regarding the application submitted by the petitioner and other details have been destroyed by the Madras Passport Office. On that basis, counsel submits that the Madras Passport Office is unable to furnish the details regarding the previous application of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner may be advised to meet the 2nd respondent for considering Ext. P2 application. 3. Evidently the petitioner is unable to furnish the particulars regarding the previous passport obtained by him from the Madras Passport Office. It was therefore that this Court directed the respondents to obtain the details from the Madras office. Even according to the respondents, these details are no longer available and have been destroyed. In these circumstances petitioner cannot be faulted for not furnishing the details of his previous passport in the application submitted by him. It is obviously because of these reasons, submission is made by the respondents before this Court W.P.(C) No. 8760 OF 2008 -3- that the petitioner may be advised to meet the 2nd respondent for processing Ext. P2 application in the light of the supporting documents produced by him. 4. In view of the above, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext. P2 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the documents produced by him, without insisting on the production of the details regarding the application that was made or the passport that was issued to the petitioner from the Madras Passport Office or for his non-declaration of those details regarding the earlier passport in Ext. P2 application that has been submitted by him. Needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-