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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)