IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 30572 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PUTHIRICKAL MADHAVAN, AGED 44, S/O.MADHAVAN, H/NO.1195, PUTHIRICKAL HOUSE, EDAVARAMBU, P.O.KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.R.T.PRADEEP MR.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. PASSPORT OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PASSPORT OFFICE, BY PASS ROAD, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673006. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 3. DY. S.P.SPECIAL BRANCH, KANNUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINJOME. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERMR.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30572/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE EMERGENCY CERTIFICATE DTD. 21.12.08. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 26.12.08. P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 2.2.09 UNDER R.I. ACT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 14.2.09. P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 6.3.09. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 15.6.09. P8:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 18.9.09. P9:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26.6.09 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R1(a):- COPY OF THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(B):- COPY OF THE POLICE VERIFICATION REPORT 948/SB/09 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. ANNEXURE R1(C):- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION CALLED FROM THE PETITIONER VIDE IST RESPONDENT'S LETTER DTD. 6.3.09. R1(D():- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S EXPLANATION LETTER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(E):- COPY OF THE POLICE REVERIFICATION REPORT NO.315/MISC/PPT/SB/09 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. R1(F):- COPY OF THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT CALLING EXPLANATION DTD. 15.6.09 AND 18.9.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 30572 of 2009-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a resident within the limits of Peringome Police Station. He was having a passport bearing No.G4837664 issued on 26.9.2007 which is valid up to 25.9.2017. The relevant pages have been produced as Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, on his third visit to U.A.E., he lost the passport and he was arrested by the UAE police for want of passport also. After getting outpass from Indian Embassy, he came back to Mumbai on 21.12.2008 and Ext.P2 is produced in support of the above plea. Thereafter, he submitted an application for duplicate passport by Ext.P3. 2. The police verification was going on, but finally the petitioner was asked by the first respondent by Ext.P6 communication, to provide information regarding the passport he was holding, other than the one covered by the application. According to the petitioner, he is not the holder of any other passport than the lost one. Again, police report was called for and the petitioner was issued with Exts.P7 and P8 communications in the matter. wpc 30572 /2009 2 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is pointed out that the first respondent has received adverse police verification report as Ext.R1(b) from the Superintendent of Police, Kannur. The information passed on is that the applicant had obtained another passport prior to his lost passport and had gone abroad four years back. Accordingly, as per Ext.R1(c), explanation was called for from the petitioner and after getting the explanation, the matter was again referred to the Superintendent of Police, Kannur for re-verification and report. The re-verification report has been produced as Ext.R1(e), wherein the same adverse remarks have been made. This prompted the first respondent in calling a fresh explanation from the petitioner. The matter was kept pending, as it was not able to be confirmed whether he had obtained another passport. 4. The second respondent has also filed a statement in the matter. It is averred that even though so many enquiries have been conducted to find out whether the petitioner had visited abroad earlier, no details could be availed so far. No recommendation was made in the light of the information obtained at that point of time. It is pointed out that no passport application of the petitioner presently pending for verification before the second respondent. It is further pointed out that there is no objection in issuing duplicate passport to the petitioner by the first respondent, subject to wpc 30572 /2009 3 all documents in order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the above, there can be a direction to issue a duplicate passport which sought for by the petitioner. For enabling the first respondent to process the application, respondents 2 to 4 will have to forward a fresh report in the light of the statement filed by the second respondent before this Court. The No Objection with regard to the issuance of duplicate passport, will have to be communicated to the first respondent. It is up to the first respondent to call for fresh verification report also from the police. Therefore, the second respondent will issue the No Objection Certificate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and thereupon the first respondent will pass appropriate orders within a further period of three weeks. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/