Sarbjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Apr 2012
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Passports Act, 1967 s. 6(2)(f)
- Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 ss. 3, 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act coupled with the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to…
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to issue the passport to him.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has referred to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (in short “the Act”) to contend that the authorities have a right for refusal of passport where the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to having been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. Learned counsel submitted that in FIR No. 46 dated 9.2.2005, under Sections 3/4 of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, the name of the petitioner has been entered in column No.2 and, therefore, a case is stated to be pending against him which disentitles the petitioner for issuance of a CWP No. 11649 of 2011 -2- passport. He, however, states that in case the petitioner has any grievance, he may approach the trial court before whom the aforesaid criminal proceedings are pending for permission to have the passport.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act coupled with the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the trial court for appropriate proceedings. April 19, 2012 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Passports Act, 1967 — s. 6(2)(f); Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 — ss. 3, 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Apr 2012. The bench was AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.