IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2392 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.10.2011
Davinder Singh, aged 38 years, son of Shri Surjit Singh, resident of
House No.3146, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.
...Petitioner
versus
Union of India, through Secretary to Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Navkiran Singh,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3.
Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for respondent
No.4.
----
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.
1. The application for passport filed by the petitioner was
rejected on 04.01.1999 under Section 6(2)(i) of the Passport Act.
The Government had also in appeal rejected his passport application
by its orders dated 29.01.2004. The petition is filed on the ground
that after the conviction was rendered under the provisions of
Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982 read with the provisions of the Indian
Civil Writ Petition No.2392 of 2004 (O&M) -2-
Penal Code, where the petitioner had been serving a life
imprisonment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had commuted his life
sentence for the period of service already undergone and he was
ordered to be released on 03.10.1996.
2. According to the petitioner, there is no particular
impediment against the issuance of passport especially when more
than 5 years have expired since the order of release and there is no
bar under any of the provisions of the Passport Act from issuing the
passport. The Union has contended that the State Government had
not made a favourable recommendation. The State has itself filed a
reply stating that although the petitioner had been convicted in a
heinous crime and for an anti-national activity, he has not come in
any adverse activity subsequent to his release.
3. As of now, there is nothing adverse against the
petitioner. A right of freedom of movement is a constitutional
guarantee and it could be fettered only by the law which imposes
reasonable restrictions. The reasonableness of the restriction will be
tested on what the law itself contains. In this case, the Passport Act
makes provisions for persons, who are convicted of offences
involving moral turpitude if the conviction falls within a period of 5
years prior to the date of his application and sentenced to an
imprisonment of not less than 2 years. Admittedly, there is no case
pending now. None of the grounds which are mentioned under
Section 10(2)(a) to (i) are attracted. The petitioner shall, therefore,
Civil Writ Petition No.2392 of 2004 (O&M) -3-
be favourably considered and the competent authority amongst
respondents is directed to issue a passport in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition is allowed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
19.10.2011
sanjeev