High Court Kerala High Court

Jishad Uppungal Sivanandan vs Regional Passport Officer on 12 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Jishad Uppungal Sivanandan vs Regional Passport Officer on 12 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11821 of 2007(G)


1. JISHAD UPPUNGAL SIVANANDAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/12/2007

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                 = =W.P.(C)=No.=11821=OF = = = = =
                      = =   =     = =    =
                                           2007 G
                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                Dated this the 12th December, 2007

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner had applied to the respondent for the issue of a

passport. In the application as also in the writ petition the

petitioner has disclosed that he was a resident of Gujarath along

with his brother Shri. Prabhakaran, and his address in Gujarath is

indicated to be, Jishad Uppungal Sivanandan, C/o. Prabhakaran,

Ramson Engineering Industries, GIDC Estates, C-1,178/2, Mehsana,

Gujarath-384 002. By Ext. P1, the respondent has requested the

petitioner to furnish his complete address at Gujarath for

processing the application made by the petitioner. It is on receipt

of Ext. P1, that this writ petition has been filed praying for a

direction to the respondent to issue passport to the petitioner within

a shortest definite time frame.

2. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent shows that on

receipt of the application of the petitioner, when it was disclosed

WPC No. 11821/07 -2-

that the petitioner was a resident of Gujarath, the address furnished

by the petitioner was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,

Mehsana, Gujarath, for verification. It is stated that on 10-12-

2004 Ext. R1 report was received from the Supdt. Of Police stating

that no such person was available in the GIDC area and the address

furnished is also incomplete. The respondent has also produced

Ext. R1D a communication issued to the Supdt. Of Police, Mehsana,

Gujarath. In this communication the petitioner’s name is shown as

G. Prabhakaran. The initial shown in Ext. R1D is taken as No. 9 and

it is on that basis the Supdt. of Police, Mehsana has issued Ext. R1E

stating that there is no such addressee and that the person is not

traceabale.

3. From the above facts, it is obvious that it is on account of

the report received from the Supdt. Of Police, Mehsana the

respondent concluded that there was no such addressee in

Gujarath. It is on that basis further information on the complete

address of the petitioner was called for by the respondent by

issuing Ext. P1.

4. A reading of the counter affidavit and the documents

annexed therewith show that the confusion is created by the

WPC No. 11821/07 -3-

respondent only. Exts. R1A and R1D show that the full address of

the petitioner was not furnished to the Supdt. Of Police. With the

address that is furnished to the Supdt. Of Police, he could not trace

out the addressee and it is therefore that had given a report that the

address is incomplete. Therefore, the respondent should take up

the matter afresh with the Supdt. Of Police, Mehsana furnishing the

full address of the petitioner as given in this judgment which is

extracted from paragraph 1 of the writ petition itself:

“Jishad
Ramson EngineeringSivanandan,
Uppungal C/o. Prabhakaran,
Industries, GIDC Estates, C-
1,178/2, Mehsana, Gujarath -384 002.”

5. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing

that the respondent shall furnish the Gujarath address of the

petitioner as indicated in this judgment and obtain a report from

the Supdt. Of Police, Mehsana, Gujarath. On receipt of the report,

the respondent shall process the application made by the petitioner

for issuing a passport to him.

6. Now that the respondent has to take up the matter to

Gujarath Police and the Gujarath Police are yet to conduct an

investigation and furnish a report, this Court is not in a position to

WPC No. 11821/07 -4-

fix any definite time frame in the matter. However, having regard

to the urgency pointed out by the petitioner as he has a visa to go

abroad to earn a living, I direct that the respondent shall expedite

the process and ensure that the information is collected and the

application of the petitioner is processed without delay.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-