*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 3605/2011 & CM No.7552-53/2011 (for directions).
MOHD IRFAN GANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain, Adv.
Versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the order dated 10th May, 2010 of the
Appellate Authority under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967
dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
16th March, 2009 of the Embassy of India at Rabat, Morocco revoking the
Passport No.G4546002 earlier issued to the petitioner and valid from 10 th
April, 2008 till 19th April, 2018.
2. The petitioner stationed at Morocco had applied to the Embassy of
W.P.(C)3605/2011 Page 1 of 4
India at Rabat for a duplicate passport claiming that his original passport
had been lost. During the pendency of the said application, it was realized
that the brother of the petitioner namely Mr. Rouf Ahmed Ghani had
travelled on the said passport. A notice dated 10 th February, 2009 was thus
issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the passport earlier issued
to him and reportedly lost should not be impounded/revoked for
contravention of the condition that the passport holder shall not allow
anybody else into custody/possession thereof.
3. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 12th February, 2009 to the
said notice to show cause denying having allowed his brother to travel on
the said passport.
4. The Embassy, as aforesaid, vide order dated 16th March, 2009
revoked/impounded the passport.
5. The Appellate Authority in the order dated 10th May, 2010 has held
that the brother of the petitioner namely Mr. Rouf Ahmed Ghani, who was
also at Morocco and was an accused under prosecution in Morocco and
whose passport had been impounded by the Morocco authorities, had fled
from Morocco on the passport of the petitioner. Thus, the order of
revocation/impounding was upheld.
6. Aggrieved therefrom the present petition has been filed. Notice was
issued and the counsel for the respondent directed to produce the records.
Though no counter affidavit has been filed but the records have been
produced by the counsel for the respondent and have been perused.
W.P.(C)3605/2011 Page 2 of 4
7. The first argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that while the
number of the passport of the petitioner was G4546002, the appellate order
records the person who is claimed to be the brother of the petitioner to
have arrived at Mumbai on 28th September, 2008 on passport
No.G4546000. It is thus argued that the entire substratum of the case
against the petitioner is on an erroneous presumption.
8. The record produced by the counsel for the respondent however
shows that the report of the Immigration Department considered by the
Passport Authorities was, of a person having arrived at Mumbai on 28th
September, 2008 from Abu Dhabi on Jet Airways flight No.9W 583 on
passport No.G4546002. It thus appears that the passport No.G4546000
recorded at two places in the appellate order is a typographical error.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the orders are
erroneous for the reason of not specifying whether the punishment of
impounding of the passport or of revocation of the passport has been
imposed. It is urged that the two have different connotations.
10. The counsel for the respondent has rightly clarified that while
impounding is an interim measure which may be invoked during the
pendency of the proceeding for revocation, revocation is the final
punishment. There is thus no merit in the said contention also.
11. The counsel for the petitioner though has also argued that the order
of the Embassy is without any reasons and thus in contravention of Section
10(5) of the Act but upon it being pointed out that detailed reasons have
W.P.(C)3605/2011 Page 3 of 4
been given in the appellate order, he confines the relief in this petition to
consideration of an application to be made by the petitioner for issuance of
a fresh passport.
12. The counsels are in tandem that revocation of an earlier passport
does not bar the petitioner from applying for a fresh passport though may
be a consideration in issuance of a fresh passport.
13. Once it is found that the order of revocation does not bar the
petitioner from applying for a fresh passport, it is not deemed expedient to
direct the consideration of any application made by the petitioner therefor
in as much as the petitioner is at liberty to apply for a fresh passport and
the respondents are expected to deal with the said application in
accordance with law.
14. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 30 , 2011
pp..
W.P.(C)3605/2011 Page 4 of 4