C.W.P. No.2168 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2168 of 2002 Date of Decision: 18.01.2010 Mahavir Singh @ Mahabir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar and others ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition relates to an order declining the issuance of a passport to the petitioner. The decision of the authority was on the basis of a police verification, which contained an adverse entry of involvement of petitioner in a criminal case and hence, it was decided that the passport could not bee issued. The petitioner in his petition states that the Panchayat of Village Sultanwind along with respectable persons passed resolution that the petitioner was of good character and there was no complaint pending or decided against him. 2. The contention on behalf of the Union is that the order was in conformity with the legal provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and a case under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA had been C.W.P. No.2168 of 2002 -2- registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.49 of 1995 under Section 307, 148, 149,222 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. It is a fact that the petitioner had been acquitted but still the report of the police was not favourable to the petitioner and it was the police perception that the petitioner and his brother had been involved in terrorist activities and surrendered before the DGP, Punjab at Amritsar. 3. The decision that is taken by authority on due consideration of relevant facts and on an adverse police report cannot be a subject of challenge unless the report of the police itself is without any basis. It is admitted even by the petitioner that he had been implicated in a criminal case and that it ended in an acquittal is a different issue. If his right to freedom is fettered by the provisions of the Passport Act, it should be taken only as a reasonable restriction through an enactment and the procedure prescribed therein. 4. At the previous hearing on 21.10.2009, there was no representation for the petitioner and this Court had specifically ruled that the counsel shall attend the Court and present the case. There is no representation even today although the case is listed for hearing. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed as such. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 18, 2010 Pankaj*