1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1067 OF 2009 Shri Abu Asim Azmi. .. Petitioner Vs The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents -- Ms Sonal along with Shri Ravi Goenka i/by Goenka Law Associates for the Petitioner. Shri A.M. Sethna for the Respondents. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the Petitioner has prayed that the order dated 9th April, 2009, Exhibit-H to the Petition, be set aside and further the Respondents be directed to issue passport to the Petitioner immediately on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem fit and proper. According to the Petitioner, he is an Indian National and also is a former Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), besides that, he is the active social worker. He was issued a passport on 30th July, 1997 for a period of 10 years and he travelled on that passport bearing Number A3508056 on various occasions. On 26th November, 2002, the Petitioner was 2 issued diplomatic passport bearing Number D1104825. Obviously, after he became a Member of Rajya Sabha, the Petitioner made an application on 11th December, 2008 to Respondent No.3 for issuance of passport. Respondent No.3 vide its order dated 29th December, 2008 informed the Petitioner that since the Petitioner has revealed that there are 9 cases pending against him in the court of law in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport could not be granted to the Petitioner. Against his order, the Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition before this Court which came to be disposed of by an order of a Division Bench dated 9th February, 2009. In furtherance to which, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Passport Act. This appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 9th April, 2009, correctness, legality or otherwise of which is challenged by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 2. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Respondents wherein they have taken a stand that there are nearly 13 cases alleging commission of different offences are pending against the Petitioner. In terms of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Passport Act, 1967 read with Notification dated 25th August, 3 1993 under Section 22(a) thereof, the Petitioner has not approached any Criminal Court of Competent jurisdiction where the cases are pending seeking permission to go abroad and that the Respondents, in fact, have no power to issue passport as there is no direction or implied authority to issue passport to the Petitioner. 3. It is not in dispute before us that there are nearly 13 cases pending and registered against the Petitioner at different police stations. These cases are under Sections 118, 135, 143, 149, 153, 344, 363, 323 to 325, 420, 465 and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 53 of M.R.T.P. Act, and different provisions of Bombay Police Act registered by different Police Stations. 3. In the present Petition, there is no challenge to the Notification dated 25th August, 1993 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, under Section 22 of the Passports Act. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant before it, referred to various cases where in it has also been noticed that the non-recommendatory police report dated 18th February, 2009 sent to Regional 4 Passport Office, Mumbai, was also received and which shows pendency of those cases. Taking cumulative effect and after hearing the Petitioner, the said order was passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. In our considered view, the order of the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity, nor does it violate the principles of natural justice. The Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal to interfere with the order of the Executive Authority exercising quasi judicial power or to decide the merit or demerit of the order. Furthermore, there being no challenge to the Notification, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Competent Authority. 5. For the reasons aforerecorded, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J