IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7995 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL RASHEED.A., ALIYAKKADA, S/O.MUHAMED KUNHI, HOUSE NO.157 C, ALIYAKKADA HOUSE, P.O.BURNASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 7995 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry into Ext.P4 and issue a certificate of loss of passport. 2. Petitioner was holding an Indian Passport bearing No.2531345 issued from the 1st respondent's office. It is stated that he lost the passport while travelling from Burnassery to Kannur within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. 3. However, he made an application for a fresh passport without disclosing the loss of the earlier passport. However, that application was closed as per Ext.P1, leaving it open to the petitioner to make an application afresh after completing the procedural formalities. Thereafter, it is stated that he reported the loss of passport to the 2nd respondent and finally, the 2nd respondent made Ext.P5 report to the 3rd respondent expressing his inability to issue the certificate of loss of passport. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that it was mainly because the petitioner had suppressed the fact of loss of passport when he made application WPC 7995/09 :2 : for a fresh passport that the second respondent expressed his inability to issue the certificate. 4. In my view, the said fact though is correct, is irrelevant in so far as the request of the petitioner for certificate of loss of passport is concerned. 5. When an application for certificate of loss of passport is made, what is required to be done by the 2nd respondent is to enquire into the correctness of the assertion, and if the passport is found to be irretrievably lost, to issue a certificate to that effect. In this case, such an endeavour is not seen made and the reason stated in Ext.P5 being irrelevant, I set aside Ext.P5 and direct the 2nd respondent to enquire into Ext.P4, and if satisfied, issue the certificate of loss of passport to the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp