High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Ekadantha Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The Passport Authority on 3 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
M/S Ekadantha Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The Passport Authority on 3 June, 2011
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
,;-

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATA.KA__AT 3A;'NG:A;:..,6'RE  

DATED THIS THE 3"' DAYOF JLi:s;E._2ct'1--1._' *
BEFORE: *    '

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHA.NTAN»A.a:dubAR"'v '

wan' PETITION No.41'Z§i9[2016 (vGM14>,Ass'3«--v... 
C/w.WRIT PETITION No.41"27 0.'2o1d~{.(§M'--iPA$s)

IN w.p. No.4125942o1o'  _ 

Between :

M/s. Ekadantha HQt.e:!;s   :
Having its Registe_red}3'r'fice   _  " 
At L-17, Chanda'agupt'r:.a--:E:oad_ ..,__   ' ' '
Lashkar Mohall, _VMy$o;fe _   A_
Rep by its _Ma.nag*in_g Dmectorf 
P. Prabhu:fam, S7"o];PVem:4yram 
Aged 58 years.' '  '  ..Petitioner
(By Sri G. Bélal§ri~shné' 
And i  . " ' " '

  -Thés5a§-époE:A.AuthofiE§%"

 ' The ..Passp0rt.MVOffice
'  80_T.Fee;t  RQa'c§, "8"'_1.~B!ock
Kora.mahga;%a  "
Ba::;gafor.e- 563034.

 .   Vivekra} 

  :'Z,:'r:>__E5. Rajendra

 E-xged«.29 years

'Reszciing at No.1~24/1
KUIOGF Kavoor Road

  ....E'*anjE Megan;



Kandanaciy Rurei
Mangaiore 
{I>.i<g District--SZ?SO:3. '.Respcsnd.enii$

(By Sri Unni Krishnan, Adv, for R1;  '

Sri Raghavendra Rae for P. Karunakar Associates, Adx{".';--~for:'Ti{2:}'  '

This Writ Petition is filed undemirticies  22_7»Vo'f._ '
the Constitutien of India praying to zziireci; i::eli<t. Act 1196'? '

in pursuance of the representatio_n"'producesd at' A.nnexur.e¥A.
IN W.P. N0.41270/2010 
Between : V K

P. Prabhuram   V

S/0 Pemaram , «    _,    I

Aged 58 years  _ _   _  " 

Residing at No.;2'64T5,/VS"i~v"I'_V "   V '

2"" Main, TempieRe_a:j " _  e_ 

v.v. Mohal_l.a,-~M_yse_re--C:;3..._    ..Peti'tioner

(By Sri G. :'BalaKrisnine:':?sijas,f'ry:L';i\dv.,')

And :

__1. The Pessrport Aiitherity '

. _ The_F'a5:3ei30i<t Office'  ~~~~~ ~ "
A80 Feet"i?:'oa_d;«..§_3"' Bieck
. ' i<oraman4g'aia'-V AV '
 Bangaj ioree 5630321.

 2. B. Rajenar*e;f=A

. S/0 B,G'epai
  Aged 62V__y*ears
., Sd"Fij"a\/ Apartments
* _i-ia: N'o.?G3, Shivbhag
i-rianga!ore--S?S O02.



And also

i\io.F--34, Meridan Guru Plaza

Building, Near KSRTC Bus Stand   '  «M
Bejai, Mangalore--5?S O04. .:,Resp0vnde'ii'its_'"1 '
(By Sri Unni Krishnan M, Adv? for R1)   

This Writ Petition is filed under £é_rti~eles'~22~S' at

the Constitution of India praying to direct. the R511; to Con*sid'er"g
the representation submitted "o.y'the petiptioner,for"'i-n.it:'ating'-

proceedings under Section 10(3)'{ieé)'l»of the Passpiort',Act 1967
in pursuance of the repre_sentatio.n _prodsiced at-A.nr1eixure---A.

These Writ Petitio'nstsarei__  ..or's. for preliminary
hearing in ' B' group this day,._the__Cous*t,vn'i~a'de.--the following :

Petition.eVrs«::_44\"tiatre"  direction to the 1"
respondenltlllto 't.hVe»:rvepresentation vide Annexure--' A'
(in both the 'petiti.o.ns?)'.d'ated«7.12.2010 submitted by them

for initiating élliproeeedintgslaunder Section 10 (3-)(e) of the

 V.Passp'eort }5;et,"l'3,f967.  lllll 

*2; T"itej-.re:eords reveal that the petitioners have made

an rep:fesen.tation as per Annexure~'A' dated 7.12.2810

 ".rnaAlkilng_ce'ttain aiiegations against the 2" respondent. In the

.j’g;aid representation, the petitioners have prayed to impound

passport of the 2″ respondent (i.e., Vivekraj in

141

W.P.No.41269/IO and B.Rajermdra in w.P.No.4;2j{»o.{1.,o)

based on the grounds aiieged in the representaItiens_;v:-Seri-d”1_

representations are received by the 13*’ _-s~respfon»deht–A 2

14.12.2010. Immediateiy, within fouri.de.\;s’4’~th:erea’fter..__’_i.e..V,f

on 18.12.2010, these writ petiti_ons'”ere” fiiedfl ruP,e_tAitio}’1ers:”‘1,

shouid have waited for reasonab’l’ei*.t.i’me forV”the”‘1*’V* respondent
to consider their represehtation’s.fl_’fhe_V’ petitioners should not
have rushed to this Cofluflrti fiiing the
representations.” Th..e.?’efo:r_e, are liable to be
dismissed on V

3. Bemey, after receipt of the

representatiehsi\rid’e_,li;;j’ne§§’e..re§’A’, the respondent No.1 has

__sent e_{iet’ter as r~peg’Anh;axure-‘ R-2’ dated 24.1.2011 to the

Z”,petitioireersfiito”furnish certain details. According to the

Ieern’ed.Ac:<3d'nse§»V.i'fo'r the 15': respondent. petitioners have not

_furnésh.ed .._det.e..«:i"'Is as required by the respondent No.1. If the

111'ir'irr1.;:'e:a;krs a.re—-1:*urnished to the 13' respondent by the petitioners,

.theV"-»retguest of the petitioners wit! be considered in

Vaccerdapce with iaw.

1 /\

2.»/,2

-5-

4! Since the petitioners have not furnished the detaifs

as required by the 13′ respondent in its letter videV..A_n_n.e>erre4_

‘R~2′ dated 24.1.2011, the respondent No.1 .is’L:..n.at$Vli.e

ahead with the matter_ Therefore, l’fot..vth_e

furnish the details as required hy thelwfi’-respon.de:n’t

action in accordance with law acj’a.i:Vn’st theV’25_d”‘rreVspovnVdent {in
each of the petitions). arevvliforthcoming
from the petitioners, it for the 15’
respondent to fan Accordingly, the

following order is-éfnadle— :.

Writ p-etitio”ris:’V-st’andl~._olisrnissed, with an observation

that it is opeanllfor'”th’eV.:pelfltioners to furnish the details as

4._.V.requir.ed “by 1” resnovndent in its letter dated 24.1.2011. If

arjerl.f%u.rAn”i–shed by the petitioners, the same shall be

consid-ered ‘fly-._tt:e”1$t respondent in accordance with iaw.

3%};

3§§§E

1ef*eok£nk