IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (C) No. 5399 of 2005
...
Pabitra Kumar Dam & Another ... ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
Union of India & Others ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioners : - Mr. Milan Kumar Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent-U.O.I. : - Mr. Faiz-ur-Rahman, C.G.C.
...
5/08.05.2009
Heard Mr. M. K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Faiz-ur-Rahman, learned C.G.C. for the Respondent-Union of India.
The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for issuance of
a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to issue Passport to the
petitioners.
The facts of the petitioners’ case in brief are that the petitioners
claiming themselves to be the citizens of India, had submitted their applications
for issuance of Passports in their favour before the Passport Officer, Ranchi
(Respondent No. 3) but the Respondent No. 3 after keeping their application
pending for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and after taking a decision on
the same, had informed the petitioners that their applications for grant of Passport,
has been rejected.
The petitioners have questioned the propriety of the impugned
order on the ground that the impugned order has been passed purportedly on the
basis of some investigation conducted by the Vigilance Department but the
Enquiry Report of the Vigilance Department does not represent the actual state of
affairs and as a matter of fact, the relevant documents which would confirm that
the petitioners are citizens of India and not the citizens of Bangladesh, have not
been perused and verified at all by the Vigilance Department and without
considering the material evidences adduced by the petitioners, an adverse report
has been submitted against them on the basis of which, the Passport has been
denied to the petitioners.
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rahman, Learned C.G.C. appearing for the
Respondents-Union of India on the other hand, would submit that the petitioners
cannot find any fault with the impugned order of the Passport Authority in view
of the fact that such order was passed in accordance with the procedure laid down
under the Passport’s Act and on the basis of the Vigilance enquiry. Learned
counsel adds that the petitioners appear to be actually aggrieved with the Report
of the Vigilance Department and if that be so, the petitioners ought to have
impleaded the State Government as party-Respondent in this case through its
appropriate Department to reply to the dispute raised by the petitioners.
Be that as it may, it appears that the prayer of the petitioners for
grant of Passport has been rejected on the ground that the Vigilance Enquiry
conducted in respect of the petitioners shows that they are not the citizens of
India, rather, they are the citizens of the Bangladesh.
Since this is the ground stated for refusal for grant of Passport, I do
not find any impropriety in the impugned order neither do I find any reason to
issue a writ of mandamus in the nature of the relief prayed for by the petitioners.
In the light of the grounds as stated above, the prayer of the
petitioners in this writ application cannot be allowed and therefore, the prayer of
the petitioners is hereby rejected. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to
pursue the matter before the concerned authorities or to file a fresh application
before the concerned authorities of the Respondents for grant of Passport and on
such petition being received the concerned authorities of the Respondents shall
forward the same for a fresh enquiry together with all relevant documents filed by
the petitioners alongwith their applications in support of their claim that they are
actually the citizens of India.
With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK