Segu Noordeen vs The Passport Officer on 20 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38204 of 2010(A)


1. SEGU NOORDEEN,S/O.KAMALUDEEN,AGED 41
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAKIR.K.H.

                For Respondent  :SHRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN, CGC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/01/2011

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                   W.P.(C) NO. 38204 OF 2010
                =====================

           Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner’s grievance is regarding the refusal of the

respondents in renewing his passport. According to the petitioner,

he was initially issued a passport bearing No.B1894592, which

was valid till 11/5/2010. It is stated that, he made an application

for its renewal and that has now been declined. According to the

petitioner, the refusal to renew the passport was on account of

the reason that he had temporarily shifted his residence. It is

with this allegation, seeking orders for the renewal of passport,

the writ petition is filed.

2. However, learned standing counsel appearing for the

respondents points out that initially the passport of the petitioner

was issued from Trichi. According to the learned counsel, the

name of the petitioner as shown in his voter ID card, PAN card

and Ration Card is different from what was shown in his passport.

It is also stated that the residential address shown also is

different. According to the learned counsel, on account of the

above said reasons, when police verification report was obtained,

WPC No. 38204/10
:2 :

the same was adverse to the petitioner, and that, it was therefore

that the renewal was refused by the respondents. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is only

slight variation in the names as shown in the voter ID card and

PAN card. According to him, the mistake in the ration card was

corrected by Ext.P5 based on Ext.P4 certificate issued by the

Village Officer. It is contended that documents explaining the

alleged inconsistencies were produced. Therefore, it is contended

that respondents ought not have denied the renewal of the

passport.

3. Prima facie, going by voter ID card and PAN card,

copies of which are Exts.P1 and P2 and the ration cards which are

Exts.P3 and P5, there is difference in the name of the petitioner as

compared to the entries in Ext.P6 passport. If that be so, passport

authorities cannot be faulted for their refusal to renew the

passport and that too when it is based on an adverse police

report. Therefore, on the material available, this Court will not be

justified in finding fault with the passport authorities.

4. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has an

explanation for the inconsistencies, if the petitioner is in a position

WPC No. 38204/10
:3 :

to offer satisfactory explanation to the respondents, it is for them

to consider the matter.

5. In that view of the mater, I direct that it will be open to

the petitioner to make an appropriate representation showing all

the details and explaining the inconsistencies in his name and

address, and if the 1st respondent is also satisfied about the

explanation offered, he will call for a fresh police verification

report and if the report so obtained is not adverse to the

petitioner, the petitioner’s request for renewal of the passport will

be reconsidered.

With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp