Protester who was denied passport gets relief from HC
Saravanan.L1@timesgroup.com
Madurai: The regional passport officer (Madurai Region) has been directed to issue the passport to a diploma holder who was denied the document after he suppressed information about the filing of a criminal case against him for taking part in a protest against Tasmac.
A division bench of justices M Sathyanarayanan and R Hemalatha of the of the Madras high court’s Madurai bench gave the relief to Arumugam of Sattur in Virudhunagar district by disposing his appeal against the single judge order dated January 29 last dismissing his writ petition against the passport authority.
Arumugam, a diploma holder in electrical and electronic engineering (EEE), and a few others on April 18, 2017, assembled in front of a Tasmac outlet and raised slogans demanding its closure. It led the Sattur police to register a case against him. He did not disclose this in his passport application.
The regional passport authority issued a notice to him on January 9 directing him to explain within 30 days why he had suppressed the information. Challenging it, he filed a writ.
The assistant solicitor general had argued that once the case was registered, the petitioner was obliged to disclose the said fact. He was aware of the said fact but did not disclose the said material fact and in the light of Sections 10(a), 10
(2)(b) and 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967, was not entitled to get the passport, he said. But, the bench said, “Mere pendency of FIR proceedings cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the case is in FIR stage and even for the sake of arguments, subsequently, the chargesheet has been filed, as on the date of submission of the application for passport, only FIR is pending and it cannot be construed as pendency of a criminal case and it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case.”
It then directed the regional passport officer to process the passport application in accordance with law.
Saravanan.L1@timesgroup.com
Madurai: The regional passport officer (Madurai Region) has been directed to issue the passport to a diploma holder who was denied the document after he suppressed information about the filing of a criminal case against him for taking part in a protest against Tasmac.
A division bench of justices M Sathyanarayanan and R Hemalatha of the of the Madras high court’s Madurai bench gave the relief to Arumugam of Sattur in Virudhunagar district by disposing his appeal against the single judge order dated January 29 last dismissing his writ petition against the passport authority.
Arumugam, a diploma holder in electrical and electronic engineering (EEE), and a few others on April 18, 2017, assembled in front of a Tasmac outlet and raised slogans demanding its closure. It led the Sattur police to register a case against him. He did not disclose this in his passport application.
The regional passport authority issued a notice to him on January 9 directing him to explain within 30 days why he had suppressed the information. Challenging it, he filed a writ.
The assistant solicitor general had argued that once the case was registered, the petitioner was obliged to disclose the said fact. He was aware of the said fact but did not disclose the said material fact and in the light of Sections 10(a), 10
(2)(b) and 10(3)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967, was not entitled to get the passport, he said. But, the bench said, “Mere pendency of FIR proceedings cannot be construed as pendency of criminal proceedings. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the case is in FIR stage and even for the sake of arguments, subsequently, the chargesheet has been filed, as on the date of submission of the application for passport, only FIR is pending and it cannot be construed as pendency of a criminal case and it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case.”
It then directed the regional passport officer to process the passport application in accordance with law.
No comments:
Post a Comment