IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22541 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEER S., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SAINUDEEN, SUDHEER MANZIL, P.O.UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691589. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22541 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PORT REGISTRATION OFFICER, TVM AIRPORT BEARING NO.PRO/PVM-AP/2008 DATED NIL TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT NO.H8853409 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, TVM EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PEITTIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).22541/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to release the petitioner's passport bearing No.H8853409 to him. 2. According to the petitioner, he is employed in Saudi Arabia and when he reached Thiruvananthapuram Airport on 18.8.2011, the passport was seized by the Immigration Officer and forwarded the same to the first respondent. Though the petitioner admits that Crime No.1687/2011 on the file of the Kottiyam Police station is pending against him, he submits that pendency of the aforesaid proceedings is not a reason to seize the passport and thus preventing him going abroad and to join his job. It is in such circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the passport was obtained by the petitioner on 3.3.2003 under the Tatkal Scheme and the passport bearing No.H8853409 was issued from the office W.P.(C).22541/11 2 of the first respondent in continuation of the earlier one. It is stated that subsequently, adverse police report was received on 10.12.2010 stating the non availability of the petitioner and also that he is an accused in Crime No.1687/2011. It is stated that there upon, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.12.2010 and since there was no response to the same, a letter dated 25.1.2011 was again issued to the petitioner and the passport was ordered to be impounded. According to them, it is in pursuance to the above, that when the petitioner reached Thiruvananthapuram Airport, his passport was seized and forwarded to the first respondent which is kept in safe custody. In paragraph 4 of the statement it is further stated thus:- “The petitioner has furnished new personal particulars form in which it is seen that his father's name, mother's name, his date of birth and address differ with that in the passport. This has been referred to the SP of Police, Kollam Rural for conducting re- verification. His father's name was earlier shown as Aboobaker Kunju and date of birth as 28.5.1978 as per the extract of admission register issued by the Headmistress, SMHSS, Patharam. Now it is shown that the father's name is Sainudeen and that his date of birth is 11.4.1973. His school certificate and W.P.(C).22541/11 3 electoral card is now sent to the issuing authority for verification of genuineness and their reply is awaited.” Thus according to the respondents, the matter is pending verification of the Superintendent of Police, Kollam. 4. In the nature of the facts thus disclosed by the respondents, the impounding of the passport, on the materials available before this Court, cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, only when the process of verification is completed, can the petitioner claim release of the passport, provided the report obtained is favourable to him. 5. In such circumstances, this Court cannot direct authorities to release the passport as sought for by him. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs