IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1104 of 2007()
1. ALEX VARGHESE, ADVOCATE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. PASSPORT OFFICER,
3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
4. PROTECTOR OF EMIGRANTS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, CGC
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :29/05/2007
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
W.A. No. 1104 OF 2007
...................................................................................
Dated this the 29th May, 2007
J U D G M E N T
H.L. Dattu, C.J.:
This appeal arises out of the judgment delivered by the learned single
Judge in W.P.(C) 5585 of 2006 dated 25th July, 2006.
2. Brief facts are:
The petitioner had filed an application for renewal of his passport The
application is dated 26.12.2002. The Passport Officer has renewed the passport
facilities to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Passport Officer had initiated
proceedings under the Passport Act, by his notice/order dated 07.11.2002,
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the
Chief Passport Officer, as provided under section 11 of the Passport Act, 1967
(‘Act’ for short). The Chief Passport Officer had disposed of his appeal by his
order dated 27.03.2006 directing the Passport Officer to restore passport facilities
to the petitioner after imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000/- for suppression of material
information regarding the criminal case pending against him.
3. Aggrieved by the above said two orders, the petitioner was before this
court in W.P.(C) 5585 of 2006. Learned single Judge has rejected the Writ
W.A. No. 1104 OF 2007
2
Petition by his order dated 25.07.2006. That is how, the petitioner is before us in
this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, apart from others, would contend that
the Chief Passport Officer, who is the appellate authority ought not to have
decided the appeal filed by the petitioner , against the order passed by the Passport
Officer, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. In
support of the said contention, learned counsel brings to our notice the proviso to
sub section (5 ) of Section 11 of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned
order.
6. Section 11 of the Act provides for filing of appeal , if , for any reason, a
person is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Passport Officer. In the instant
case, such an appeal was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the orders
passed by the Passport Officer dated 07.11.2002. The appellate authority has
disposed of the appeal, but without affording an opportunity of being heard. The
proviso appended to sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act mandates that no
appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate authority without affording an
opportunity for hearing.
7. In the instant case, such an opportunity for hearing, as envisaged under
sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act is not provided to the appellant.
Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is in contravention of
W.A. No. 1104 OF 2007
3
proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the said order
cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the following:
O R D E R
i) The order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside.
ii) The order passed by the first appellate authority dated 27.03.2006 is set
aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the first appellate authority to re-do the
matter in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by us in the
course of the order.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk