Cwp No. 30097 of 2024 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Passport Act, 1967
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Petition is disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate, for Mr. Shubham Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. … SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has approached this Court inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-issue the passport to the petitioner with corrected particulars.
Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the respondents. Upon instructions, counsel representing the respondents submits that the application, Annexure P-8, is lacking in particulars and respondent No.2, intends to issue a notice to the petitioner, calling for clarification.
Let the same be done. It is expected that respondent No.2, would process the application, Annexure P-8, under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rules, as framed thereunder, as expeditiously as possible.
Operative part
Petition is disposed of. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No
08.11.2024 Pardeep PARDEEP NAUTIYAL 2024.11.08 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Passport Act, 1967.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 08 Nov 2024. The bench was SUVIR SEHGAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.