Monday, February 13, 2017
current address is 99% adverse police verification for passport , ex Prime Minister Manmohan case
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=16601
The question, then, is whether the enquiry against the
first respondent can be proceeded with. It will be seen
that the enquiry was opened by the letter of the third
respondent dated 2nd June, 1994 whereby the first respondent
was asked to furnish evidence in support of his claim of
ordinary residence as stated in Form No.1. Form No. 1
relates to the declaration of his ordinary residence by a
person holding a declared office. The claim in Form No.1
was filed by the first respondent on 7th June, 1993 when he
was already a Cabinet Minister and thus the holder of a
declared office. His statement therein could, having regard
to the true interpretation of Section 20, sub-sections (4)
and (5), have been questioned by the third respondent only
if the third respondent was possessed of evidence to the
contrary and the third respondent had intimated to the first
respondent that fact and the substance of such evidence.
There is nothing to indicate that the third respondent had
any evidence to the contrary, and he certainly did not so
state in his letter dated 2nd June, 1994. In fact, he
called upon the first respondent to adduce his evidence.
The first respondents statement in Form No.1 could not,
therefore, have been questioned and the enquiry in this
behalf is bad in law. It was contended on behalf of the
appellant that the order of the Chief Election Commissioner
dated 1st March, 1994 and the notices subsequent thereto
showed that the enquiry also related to the statement of the
first respondent about the place of his ordinary residence
in Form No. 6, that is to say, when he was not the holder
of a declared office, and therefore, the enquiry should be
allowed to proceed. In the first place, the enquiry
commenced with the third respondents letter dated 2nd
February, 1994 whereby the first respondent was asked to
furnish evidence in support of your claim of ordinary
residence as stated in Form No. 1, that is to say, in
support of the statement made by the first respondent as the
holder of a `declared office. In the second place, and in
any event, the enquiry cannot be allowed to proceed having
regard to the order of the then Chief Election Commissioner
dated 1st March, 1994. The order referred to the findings
of investigations that had been carried on, of which the
first respondent had had no notice. It drew inferences
therefrom that were very adverse to the first respondent.
It then directed the third respondent to keep in view and
pay due regard to the facts brought out in the foregoing
paragraphs of this order while conducting the enquiry and
passing the final order thereon. Having regard to the fact
that the third respondent was a subordinate of the then
Chief Election Commissioner and, given the nature of the
inferences drawn by the latter without giving to the first
respondent the opportunity of a defence, there can be no
doubt that allowing the enquiry to proceed would be
detrimental to fair play and the interests of the first
respondent. The enquiry and all notices and orders
pertaining thereto must stand quashed.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
adverse police verifcation report for address court judgement
Kerala High Court
John Kuzhutharayil Mathew vs The Regional Passport Officer on 13 June, 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 26733 of 2013 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:-
--------------------
JOHN KUZHUTHARAYIL MATHEW,
CHACKKALAPARAMBIL,
KUZHUTHARAYIL VEEDU,
KADAPARAMANNAR P.O.,
NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN CODE-689 630.
BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA
RESPONDENTS:-
------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
TRIVANDRUM, SNSM BUILDING,
KARALKADA JUNCTION,
PETTAH PO. TRIVANDRUM-695 024,
KERALA.STATE.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DISTRICT POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
KKS
WP(C).No. 26733 of 2013 (N)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: ATRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF HIS PASSPORT
BEARING NO. Q 232220 DATED 13.6.1994.
EXHIBIT P2: ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.8.2013.
EXHIBIT P3: ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.8.2013.
EXHIBIT P4: ATRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION.
EXHIBIT P5: ATRUE COPY OF THE DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P6: ATRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR NO.381756600412 ISSUED BY THE
UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P7: ATRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S
BANK PASS BOOK.
EXHIBIT P8: ATRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE PRAWASI
WELFARE BOARD.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL
-----------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
KKS
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
========================
W.P.(C). No. 26733 of 2013
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 Passport, which was
issued as early as on 13.6.1994 and he was working abroad till
2008. After coming back to India in the year 2008, the petitioner
was not in a position to go back because of various ailments.
The petitioner is eking his livelihood by working as a Security
Guard for various establishments, to be deputed from day-to-day
by the concerned Agency who has won the Contract and engaged
the petitioner accordingly.
2. While so, the petitioner made an application for renewal
of the Passport before the 1st respondent showing all the relevant
particulars, including the aspect of permanent residence. In the
course of further proceedings, the petitioner was served with
Ext.P2 notice dated 12.8.2013, followed by Ext.P3 show-cause
notice dated 16.8.2013. On receipt of Ext.P2 itself, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P4 reply/explanation pointing out the facts and
figures asserting that there was no suppression of any material
facts with regard to the residence of the petitioner and that, he is
permanently residing in the address already given, in the own
property situated in Pathanamthitta District, which is the ordinary
place of residence.
3. However, referring to adverse Police Verification report
stating that the petitioner is now residing in Ernakulam District,
the application for renewal was not positively considered and on
the other hand, further steps were taken for imposing penalty
alleging suppression of material facts, which made the petitioner
to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent referring to the alleged suppression of the present
place of residence in Ernakulam District. The version of the 1st
respondent as discernible from paragraph '3' is in the following
terms:
"3. The petitioner had applied for reissue of passport on 24.08.2013. An adverse police verification report received from the police authorities stating that the applicant has been residing at the Ernakulam address for the last four years, which is not mentioned in the application form. As per instruction contained in the Passport Manual passport applicants are to be obtained their passports from the Passport Offices/Missions/Posts under whose jurisdiction they are presently resident. Passport offices/Missions are therefore required to entertain application from persons ordinarily residing in their jurisdiction only. The first respondent has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- for suppression of present address as per instructions contained in Order No. VI/401/61/2001 dated 13.3.2008. As per the records of the 1st respondent the passport No. Q 232220 dated 13.6.1994 was issued from Embassy of India, Muscat."
5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner points out that the petitioner has not committed any
suppression of material facts and that the factual position with
regard to the residence of the petitioner is given in crystal clear
terms before the 1st respondent. Reference is also made to the
address of the petitioner as it appears in Ext.P1 Passport issued
already on 13.6.1994, address as given in Ext.P6 Aadhar Card
bearing No. 381756600412 issued by the Unique Identification
Authority of India, Ext.P7 entries in the Bank Passbook belonging
to the petitioner and also the address shown in Ext.P8 Identity
Card issued by the Prawasi Welfare Board. All these addresses
are in conformity with the address given in the application for
renewal of Passport. The learned counsel further points out that,
by virtue of the very nature of employment as Security Guard as
being deputed by the Agencies, the petitioner does not even have
any temporary address to be shown, as place of
work/accommodation varies from place to place, depending upon
the nature of employment. Eventhough there is a contention for
the 1st respondent as given in the statement that, as per the
instructions contained in the Passport Mannual, Passport has to
be obtained from the concerned Passport Office under whose
jurisdiction the applicant is ordinarily residing, the relevant
provision brought to the notice of this Court does not disclose any
specific provision as to the minimum period of such residence and
further as to the meaning of the terms "person ordinarily
resides". In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the identity of
the petitioner is very well established, as he is having the address
as given in the writ petition and all other relevant documents
including Ext.P1 Passport issued in the year 1994 and Exts. P6 to
P8. The version of the petitioner as given in the writ petition and
as given in Ext.P4 is not specifically rebutted and no specific
provision or any binding judicial precedents is brought to the
notice of this Court to deny the relief sought for by the
petitioner.
6. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the
petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, all further
proceedings pursuant to Exts. P2 and P3 are set aside. The 1st
respondent is directed to reconsider the application for renewal of
Passport bearing No. Q-232220 and take necessary steps for
issuance of the renewed Passport, if the application is otherwise
proper and in order, in all respects. The submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has not
indulged in any offence under any provisions of law and that no
criminal case is pending against him is recorded. It is open for
the 1st respondent, if so necessitated, to verify the factual
position in this regard. The proceedings as above shall be
finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along
with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for
further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
consumer complaint in case of adverse police complaint
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amulya Chandra Majumdar vs Chief Passport Officer on 25 October, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of decision: 25.10.2007 Appeal No.07/572 (Arising from the order dated 14.06.2007 passed by District Forum(South West) Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.325/2007) Sh. Amulya Chandra Majumdar Appellant B-460, Bhumiheen Camp, Near DDA Flats, Kalkai, New Delhi. Versus 1.
Chief Passport Officer Respondent
Bhikaji Cama
Place,
R.K. Puram, Nw Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Govt. of India,
Patiala House,
New Delhi.
3. Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
CORAM:
Justice
J.D. Kapoor, ... President
Ms.
Rumnita Mittal Member
1.
Whether reporters of local newspapers be
allowed to see the judgment?
2.
To be referred to
the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor,
President(ORAL)
1.
Respondent
applied for renewal of his passport on 26.03.2001 and deposited requisite fees.
He was not issued the renewed passport. Rather adverse passport verification
was received by the respondent on 18.02.2002, on the basis of which file was
closed. Consequently the appellant filed the instant complaint before District
Forum seeking direction for renewal of the passport.
2.
Vide impugned order dated
14.06.2007, the complaint was dismissed, firstly on the ground that there was
no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and secondly that the
dispute relating to grant of passport does not fall within the purview of the
Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant
has preferred this appeal.
4.
As regards the view of the
District Forum that grant of passport or renewal thereof does not fall within
the ambit of consumer disputes is wholly erroneous as section 2(1)(o) encompasses
service of any description which is
made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in
connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of
electrical, or other energy, board of lodging or both, [housing construction]
entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering
of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
5.
Whenever a person applies for
passport, he does so against consideration and therefore such a service is
available to the potential users. If there is any lapse of delay in processing the
application, the service provider, which in this case is passport issuing
authority has to be held guilty for deficiency in service and made liable to
compensate the consumer for the mental agony or harassment suffered by him.
6.
However, in the instant case,
we find that the reply received from the regional passport office reveals that
verification report was called from Dy. Commissioner pf Police (Special Branch)
Delhi and thrice incomplete passport
verification report was received, as the appellant was not available whenever
the verifying officer visited his address and therefore the adverse inference
was drawn by the passport authority.
7.
In our view the finding of the
District Forum that this was not a deficiency on the part of respondent was reasonable
conclusion. However, at the same time we feel that whenever the regional
passport office seeks assistance of police and has no wherewithal of its own to
verify the antecedents of the person it has to impress upon the police that
they should make enquiry from the neighbours if the applicant is not available
on visits, may be due to his being busy in office or having gone out of station
and he shall be contacted on telephone particularly in case of renewal of
passport, and only then submit the report and any report which has no element
of verification and is submitted because of non-availability of the person who
had applied for the passport should not be treated as negative report.
8.
However, in the given facts and
circumstances of the case, we direct the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special
Branch) to submit proper report and give time and date by way of notice to the
addressee as to verification of his antecedents as the police official may be
visiting the residence of the person in the odd hours when the person is busy
in official work and has been away from the home and submit a report to the
regional passport office who shall reconsider the matter for renewal of the
passport.
9.
The appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent.
10.
Copy of this order be sent to
the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) for compliance of the order.
11.
Appeal is disposed of in above
terms. Order shall be complied with
within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12.
Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned
forthwith.
13.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to
the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and
thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced
today on 25th day of October 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor)
President
(Rumnita Mittal)
Member
Tri
Guidelines by the court in case of adverse police report
Anwar-Ul-Haq vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 J K 35, 2007 (3) JKJ 1
Author: Y Nargotra
Bench: Y Nargotra
JUDGMENT Y.P. Nargotra, J.
1. Can consideration for granting of a Passport be withheld on account of CID Clearance? is the common question involved in these writ petitions.
2. The writ petitioners in these petitions have applied for issuance of Passports, but neither the same have been issued nor the issuance has been declined by the Passport Authority. The stand of the respondents is that on receipt of the applications for issuance/renewal of Passports the cases were sent for clearance by the CID and either the same has not been received back or received with the inconclusive report or received with the recommendation that the same should not be issued, therefore, no decision in the matter has yet been taken by the authority. It is not in dispute that till today a period of more than a year has elapsed from the date of receipt of the applications.
3. Mr. Magoo, learned Addl Solicitor General contends that though the requirement of Police verification of applicants for issuance of Passports in the all States of the Country except few States including the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been dispensed with, but same is still necessary for the applicants of the State in terms of Circular dated 11-9-2006 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and therefore, in the cases it has not been received or received with adverse recommendation from the CID the Passports have not been issued.
4. The contention of Mr. Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that for want of Police Verification the passport authority cannot with-hold his decision regarding issuance of Passports in favour of the petitioners. The Passport can be declined only on the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967.
5. Section 5 of Passport Act 1967 (hereinafter called 'the Act) deals with the issuance of passports and travel documents etc. It reads as follows:
5. Application for passports, travel documents, etc. and order thereon.--[(1) An application for the issue of a passport under this Act for visiting such foreign country or countries (not being a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application may be made to the passport authority and shall be accompanied by [such fee as may be prescribed to meet the expenses incurred on special security paper, printing, lamination and other connected miscellaneous services in issuing passports and other travel documents.] Explanation.--In this section, "named foreign country" means such country as the Central Government may, by rules made under this Act, specify in this behalf.
(1-A) An application for the issue of--
(i) a passport under this Act for visiting a named foreign country; or
(ii) a travel document under this Act, for visiting such foreign country or countries (including a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application or for an endorsement on the passport or travel document referred to in this section, may be made to the passport authority and shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) not exceeding rupees fifty, as may be prescribed.
(1-B) Every application under this section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.] (2) On receipt of an application [under this section] the passport authority, after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider, necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by order in writing,-
(a) Issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application, or
(b) Issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or
(c) Refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement.
(3) Where the passport authority makes an order under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) on the application of any person, it shall record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order and furnish to that person on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country in the interests of the general public to furnish such cop.
6. From the bare reading of the Section it would transpire that on receipt of the application the Passport Authority is empowered to make such inquiry which he may consider necessary before issuance of a Passport. It is because of such power of making inquiry the Passport Officer is entitled to seek Police verification report in regard to the antecedents of the person who has applied for the issuance of a Passport. The purpose of such inquiry by the Passport Authority is to enable himself to make up his mind as to whether the Passport or travel documents should be issued or refused in the circumstances of each particular case. In any case the decision over the issue of a Passport or travel documents has to be taken by the Passport Authority alone and for taking such decision he may keep the intelligence report in view. Merely because the intelligence report received is adverse the Passport Authority cannot defer his own decision, on the issue of Passport nor he can refuse the same without applying his mind to the facts stated in the report.
7. Adverse Police Verification report per se does not dis-entitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport. It is for the Passport Authority to take into consideration the facts/antecedents of the person who has applied for issuance of a Passport, alleged by the intelligence agency in its report, for deciding whether passport should be issued or refused. He is not bound by the recommendations of the intelligence agency.
8. In a case where Police verification has been sought but the repot has not been received, for how long the passport authority should wait for taking his decision. The answer to this is in Clause 7 of Manual 2001 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs in which guidelines on the subject have been given. Clause 7 reads:
VERIFICATION BY POLICE AUTHORITIES
7. Under Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 the Passport Authority may make such enquiry, as deemed necessary, prior to the issue of passport. In the absence of any other independent source at its disposal such inquiries are usually made through the Police authorities. Points to be noted in this connection are:
(a) Passport Officer should ensure that the police verification forms (Personal Particulars Form) are detached from the application form on the day the application is submitted and they should be sent tot eh local District Police the same day:
(b) Instead of calling for separate CID and district police reports, the Passport Office would normally send the Personal Particulars (PP) forms only to the Superintendent of Police who would obtain the comments of the State CID and forward a consolidated police report to the Passport Office, combining both security (CID) and identity report (confirmation of personal particulars) of the applicant. The prescribed format of letter to the police for obtaining the consolidated report may be seen in Appendix 12.(Reference letter No. V.I/401/12/90 dated 25.5.1993).
(c) The report is to be called for a period of one year only before the date of the application. The requirement of police verification has form October 1999, been reduced from two years to one year; the inquiry is to be conducted from all places of residence during this period. (Reference paragraph 3.i of letter No. V.I/40/38/98-H dated 13.10.1999).
(d) If the police verification report is not received within a period of 30 days and all documents are in order, the passport may be issued without waiting for the report of 'Police report overdue basis'. The Passport Authority will be guided by the instructions of the Chief Passport Officer in this regard issued from time to time. If such a passport is issued, the PIA would ensure that appropriate action is taken in case an incomplete or adverse police report is received (Reference paragraph (i) of letter No. V.I/401/20/99 dated 28.7.1999).
(e) The police report should not be treated as adverse unless it is clearly negative. Incomplete reports stating for example, that the" applicant is out of station", or " residing at the specified address for less than one year," etc. should not immediately be treated as negative and the Passport Officer should not take action to refuse, revoke or impound a passport merely on this basis:
(f) In the above cases, the police should be requested to leave behind at the address of the applicant a slip intimating the date and time of his visit and asking the applicant to report at a specified police station. This would help to keep the applicant informed and give him an opportunity to sort out the matter with the police:
(g) Passport may not be refused on a negative police/CID report unless it is supported by evidence, which can be defended in a Court of law. The PO may therefore ask the applicant to re-submit the Personal Particulars Form, which would be sent again to the concerned security authorities for re-verification. In case no reply or an unsatisfactory reply is received the applicant, then a notice of refusal of passport is to be issued and further action taken after following normal procedures.
9. Thus where complete police verification report has not been received within thirty days the Passport Authority is to take a decision by following instructions of Chief Passport Officer.
10. Therefore, in no case the Passport Officer can withhold consideration of the question of issuance of Passport or travel documents indefinitely and same shall be true about the cases of renewal or re-issue of Passports or travel documents.
11. In this view of the position these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Passport Authority to dispose of the applications filed for issuance/renewal/re-issue of Passports by passing appropriate orders within three weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)