IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27676 of 2008(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- HAMEED, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KHADER, KOCHUKUDI HOUSE, IRAMALLOOR VILLAGE, NELLIKUZHI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*IS SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DTD. 26/09/2008) ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27676/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 7/07/2008 ISSUD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE VISA. P3: COPY OF AN AGREEMENT DTD. 6/09/1999. P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE PETITIONER'S MAHAL JAMA-ATH DTD. 4/07/2008. P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 2/07/2008 OF THE MAHAL JAMA-ATH. P6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 23/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: R1: LETTER DTD. 26/05/07 ISSUED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27676 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the holder of Passport bearing No.A6270841 dated 18.9.1998. The petitioner is a driver by profession. He has sought for renewal of the passport issued to him and has submitted Ext.P1 application on 7.7.2008. The passport has not been renewed on the premise that the petitioner had not given the details regarding his marital status in the original application before the issuance of the passport; that he had described the marital status as 'not married' whereas he was actually married. According to the petitioner, though he was married, he had also divorced. Be that as it may, these facts were unearthed only at the post verification stage. It is now revealed in a statement filed by the respondent that a show cause notice was issued as early as in 1998 under Section 10 of the Passport Act requiring the petitioner to give W.P.(C).NO.27676/08 :: 2 :: an explanation as to the claim made by the petitioner that he was not married when he applied for the passport originally. But the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice and it seems that steps are now under contemplation only when a renewal application is filed. 2. I heard counsel on both sides. It was open to the respondents to take steps under Section 10 of the Act, if wrong details were given by an applicant. But, I do not think that it is very appropriate for the respondents now to refrain from renewing the passport issued to the petitioner on the basis of an action that was contemplated more than 10 years ago. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass orders renewing the passport already issued to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the renewal W.P.(C).NO.27676/08 :: 3 :: shall be effected, if the application is otherwise proper and there are no other aspects, which stand in the way of the renewal. The fact that the passport is now issued will not deter the Government from taking any action as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, provided, the same is otherwise permissible. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge