High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr. Sriram Sudheer vs The Passport Officer on 28 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mr. Sriram Sudheer vs The Passport Officer on 28 October, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.»

DATEB mxs THE 28*" my OF ocrosep, 2:e1¢&»kkkOO  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAIQ4SH'AN9rA'N_}\A${3¥'JbVARA 

wan PETITION NO.I7539/251-(5:(st-SA/\?¥§'E'§§)«--v  

BETWEEN:

Sréram Sudheer -. V O
Aged 37 years   
S/o .Sathyana rayan. V Bad r=i_
R/at.1007,1_0?"'--..F|GO§3'r_-.'_ ~ ;
Burjuman Résidéncé  . " 
Dubai, UAE.   

Also at  . . v  

No.913, Leve|-9 ' _ '  ._  

Barton Cer1"tr_e%,M M.G._Ro.ae$_"".L.

Ban9amre~1      .. PETITIONER

 ' «gay  An/ire-d  Kar%fat"'4' 'ALMT Legal, Advs.,)

 AN O

  1.  §3as?5pO?;3a*i;: Officer

86' feet Road, 8"' Block
Koramangala

 " {3a_nga'|ore--95



2. The Joint Secretary (CW) and (CPO)
Ministry of External Affairs
Patiala House

New Delhi .. REsi9oNo_E_-ti.i*s'Aj'    i.

(By Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG)   

This writ petition is riiediiaiiisitiyer Aiticies 327%
of the Constitution of India,Vi4i"'~«i.firaying""to:i'ciuaVsh the
impugned order passevdiicby  vide
Annextire-D for impouridinci;_t'he>pjet'itioneVr_fs'passport, etc.

This writ;_"p'et;ition  o'n:'io.'i"nreiiminary hearing,
this day thei'Coti_i=t:"rria.de as foi__|Ciwi'ng:V_-'
%%%% ii i9t._m D R 
SriA'«i<VVZa'-lyai'. med Assistant Solicitor

General take's..riotwice i'-orvrespondents.

petitioner has sought for a direction to

Hitxi’it°lresp.onde.nt No.2 to decide the appeal fiied by the

— oetiiitioner, on merits at an eariy date.

i/5

-3-

3. The document at Annexure–E reveals that the

petitioner has fiied appeai questioning the impoi.in.d:’ifnb_g~..VV
of petitioner’s passport before the second
on 18.1.2010. According to the petit–i–one’_r,V”not–‘I.e’iien’_jia

notice is issued to the petitioner to”hea.ringi.:’of;”:

the appeal. Petitioner wants”*vi.the ap.pea’i*i.toi_:ldeiheagrd
on merits at an eafri~,r’_ d_afé.’fp-evcauselivof”certain

urgency.

4. eieisreofidernt rim-i2. “3_hi?_’U’.d» have heard the
aPl3eal Va’t”‘ar1.”.§.~§rlA:;l/§i~:datié-.V”‘V’S«o’civ.wii«r.’iatters should not be
delayed… if the: heard at an eariy date

hardship w’E”i~i _Vbe.fi’:aAu_sed”: to the petitioner. Hence,

fiiedi Vthe”‘Detitioner on 18.1.2010 needs to

be ‘heard:~«evarlVy..:_i.~Hence, the following order made:–

.. Writ petition is disposed of with a direction

;_’t’oV”Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal of the

V3

W4-

petitioner as early as possible, but not later than the

outer limit of two months from the date of receji’p.tfy:§f~V.vv

thés order.

*c:k/nk--     tb