The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 14655 of 2014 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Deepak Kumar Nayak ...… Petitioner --------------- -Versus- Union of India & Others _______________________________________________________ .... Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. R.N.Acharya, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. D.R.Bhokta, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25th April, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer; The petitioner, therefore, most humbly this Hon’ble Court be prays graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule NISI calling upon that Page 1 of 12 the opposite parties to show-cause as to why: (i) of Rs. cancelled by the imposition of fine amount of AED 6170 equivalent with Indian 1,20,000/- currency the Arrival approximately by Indira Gandhi Supervisory International Airport, Terminal No. 2 shall not be quashed; the opposite parties shall not be directed to issue the Visa which was affixed with the old passport of the petitioner of the year 2009 which was the opposite party no.4 on dated 12.05.2014. The opposite parties shall not be directed necessary arrangement to allow the petitioner to move United Arab Emirates (Dubai) without any problem with connivance of the Airport of United Arab Emirates (Dubai); the opposite parties shall not be necessary directed compensation to the petitioner due to fault of the opposite party No.4 in respect of issuance of unsigned Passport of the Passport officer in the year 2009; take pay to to (ii) (iii) (iv) if the opposite parties fail to show-cause insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute; And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper; the And petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray. this act of kindness for Page 2 of 12 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued with passport bearing No. H6073986 on 03.07.2009 which was valid till 02.07.2019. He being a Marble Operator applied for a job as Marble Technician/Operator in M/s RAK ceramics in Dubai in the year 2010. Having been selected, he was asked to join in Dubai. A resident card issued by the Government of RAS AL-Khaimah was issued in his favour bearing No. 30009634 as also resident identity card by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). After obtaining Visa from UAE (Dubai) the petitioner attached the same to his passport certificate and proceeded to Dubai. He returned to attend to his ailing parents being granted leave from 25.04.2014 to 25.05.2014 and pre-booked a to-and-fro ticket from Dubai to Delhi and Delhi to Bhubaneswar on 25.04.2014 and return ticket on 25.05.2014 from Bhubaneswar to Delhi and Delhi to Dubai. On arrival at the entry gate international airport terminal No. 3 on 25.04.2014, the immigration authority verified his passport and found that the same did not contain the signature of the Passport Officer though his Page 3 of 12 seal has been affixed. They instructed him to obtain the signature of the Passport Officer before returning to Dubai. The petitioner went to the office of the Passport Officer on 12.05.2014 and requested for endorsement of the signature but by then the concerned Passport Officer had been transferred to a different place. Under such circumstances, the Passport was cancelled and a new Passport bearing No. L8455236 was issued in his favour with validity from 12.05.2014 to 11.05.2024. After expiry of his leave, the petitioner went to Delhi for boarding his return flight on 25.05.2014 but the authorities at the airport did not allow him to move on the ground that the Visa issued by the UAE was not affixed to his passport. Therefore, the petitioner cancelled his air ticket and returned to Odisha. On 28.05.2014, the petitioner went to the office of Passport Officer and demanded the old passport wherein the Visa was affixed. The Passport Officer did not accede to such request. However, he was issued with a certificate stating the fact of cancellation of the earlier certificate. The petitioner decided to proceed to Dubai on Page 4 of 12 26.06.2014 and went to Delhi from where he boarded the flight to Dubai. On the same day, he reached Dubai at about 10 P.M. but he was not allowed to go outside the airport for want of Visa along with his new passport. He was detained as a prisoner till 30.06.2014 in a room without proper food and rest. On 30.06.2014, the Airport Authorities deported the petitioner to Delhi after imposing a fine of Rs. 6170 AED equivalent to Rs. 1,20,000/- and seized the passport for non-payment of the fine. The petitioner returned to New Delhi where the Immigration Officer imposed the fine and seized the passport on the condition that the same shall be released on payment of fine. On such facts, the petitioner contends that it is entirely due to the negligence of the Passport Officer in not signing the passport that he had to face such misery including loss of his service at Dubai. All the problems arose because of the inability of the Passport Officer to provide the Visa attached to the original passport which was cancelled. 3. The stand taken of the Opposite Party authorities is that the passport originally issued in favour of the Page 5 of 12 petitioner was dispatched to him inadvertently without the signature of B.K. Laskar, the then Passport Officer. The petitioner never having brought such discrepancy to the notice of the Passport Officer by following the instructions given on the back cover of the passport dispatch envelope, no action could be taken. Nevertheless, the petitioner got employment in the UAE and on his return, the Immigration Authority detected the discrepancy and directed him to obtain the signature on the passport. His application for reissue was allowed without any fee and new passport was issued after cancelling the earlier one. Since the petitioner did not have any Visa, he was naturally not permitted to enter into Dubai, which is entirely his mistake. He should have approached the authority for obtaining Visa. The inadvertent mistake committed by the Passport Officer in not signing the passport while issuing the same was duly rectified by cancelling the same and reissuing a new passport. It was therefore, incumbent on the petitioner to approach the visa issuing authority for getting a valid Visa. Instead, he decided to Page 6 of 12 proceed to Dubai without Visa, for which he was denied entry and imposed with fine. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that the entire problem arose because of negligence of the Passport Issuing Officer which resulted in loss of his employment, detention in custody at UAE airport for five days, unnecessary expenses of booking air ticket from Bhubaneswar to UAE, imposition of fine and mental agony etc.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. R.N.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.R.Bhokta, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India. 6. Mr. Acharya would argue that the very fact that the authorities admit to have issued the earlier passport without signature of the Passport Officer implies that they are at fault in the first place. The petitioner’s Visa was attached to the original passport which he returned to the Passport Officer on his return to Bhubaneswar for signature of the Passport Officer. The Passport Authorities however, destroyed the passport along with the Visa. As a result, the petitioner was detained at Page 7 of 12 Dubai airport and slapped with a substantial fine. Since the mistake is primarily that of the Passport Authority, the imposition of fine is entirely unlawful and unjustified for which the petitioner ought to be compensated appropriately. 7. Mr. Bhokta, learned Senior Panel Counsel would argue that even though the original passport was issued without signature of the Passport Officer, the petitioner utilizing the same had proceeded to Dubai and in fact resided there for more than 3 years. It is only on his return that the discrepancy could be detected by the Immigration Officer at the airport in New Delhi. He was advised to obtain signature of the Passport Officer for which, he approached the office at Bhubaneswar but by then the Passport Officer who had issued the passport had been transferred. Under such circumstances, steps were taken to reissue the passport without charging any fee from the petitioner. Since as per law a person cannot possess two passports, the original passport was cancelled upon issue of the new passport. The petitioner’s claim that the Visa was attached to the Page 8 of 12 passport is not correct. Nevertheless, he could not have travelled to Dubai without first obtaining a Visa. Since he chose to do so, he had to face the consequences for which the Passport Authority cannot be blamed in any manner. 8. From the facts narrated, it is seen that admittedly, the petitioner was issued with a passport in the year 2009 which was valid till 2019. He also claims to have obtained a Visa from the concerned authorities of the United Arab Emirates, (UAE) (Dubai) due to which he served in Dubai for more than 3 years. The defect in his passport, that is, absence of signature of the Passport Officer was somehow not detected at that time and was only detected upon his return. On approach by the petitioner, the authorities rightly cancelled the passport and reissued a new passport. Therefore, the discrepancy in the passport was duly rectified though belatedly. The petitioner cannot be said to have faced any problem whatsoever because of the above discrepancy in his passport. The petitioner claims that the Visa issued by the UAE was attached to his original passport which, Page 9 of 12 came to be destroyed by the Passport Authority upon reissue of a new passport. The petitioner has sworn affidavit in this regard before the Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. This stand of the petitioner is not believable because Visa is a separate document issued by a separate authority and is not required to be affixed or attached to the passport. Even assuming that the Visa was so attached, he could have retained the same while handing over the passport to the Passport Officer. Even otherwise, if for some reason, the attached Visa was destroyed along with the original passport, the petitioner could have applied for a fresh visa instead of attempting to travel without Visa. The argument that the petitioner being an uneducated person was not aware of the consequences can be considered only to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner was not a first-time traveler to Dubai but as already stated, he had travelled to Dubai and resided there for more than 3 years. It can be reasonably presumed that he must have been aware of the minimum requirements of international travel. Page 10 of 12 Having travelled without Visa, he was rightly denied entry into that country by the concerned authorities. The authorities at Dubai Airport imposed fine on him for flying without Visa. From what has been narrated before, the Passport Authorities cannot be blamed for the same. The petitioner has mixed up two different incidents and attempted to project them as one. To elaborate, the first incident concerns issue of a defective passport, which is obviously the fault of the Passport Authorities, but the same was rectified by issuing a new passport. The petitioner did not face any problem for such mistake. The second incident is entirely different from the first inasmuch as the same concerns travelling to UAE by the petitioner without a valid Visa. This was entirely the petitioner’s own decision for which he was penalized. None other than the petitioner can possibly be blamed for such indiscretion. 9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the view that no fault being attributable to the Passport Authorities, he is not entitled to be compensated by them. As regards the direction to allow him to move to Page 11 of 12 UAE (Dubai), it is still open to him to do so by obtaining Visa and by following all rules, regulations and protocols associated with international travel, which he appears to have ignored entirely on the earlier occasion. No direction from this Court is necessary in this regard. 10. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the writ application which is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:04:23 Page 12 of 12