Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Jan 1: The High Court has allowed the plea of mother of PDP president Mehbooba Mufti challenging the rejection of issuance of passport and directed the Passport Officer to consider the matter of petitioner-Gulshan Nazir afresh and pass orders thereafter within six weeks.
Justice MA Chowdhary set aside the impugned orders whereby the passport was denied to Nazir and directed the Passport Officer to consider the entire matter afresh and pass orders thereon within a period of six weeks.
Justice Chowdhary clarified that Sub Section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act clearly provides that application for grant of renewal of passport shall be refused only on the grounds mentioned in the Section and on no other ground. Apart from other grounds, Clause (c) of Sub Section (2) of Section 6 provides that request for grant or renewal of passport or travel documents can be refused, if departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India.
Court said there appears no ground to refuse issue or renewal of passport requested by the petitioner. Even, there is not an iota of allegation against the petitioner which may point out to any security concerns.
“The police verification report formulated by CID CIK cannot override the statutory provisions of Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967. Otherwise also in the report relied upon by the respondents, nothing adverse has been recorded against the petitioner, with regard to any security concerns”, read the judgment.
The only aspect with regard to the petitioner is the reference of investigation by two agencies; Enforcement Directorate and CID CIK with regard to some of the transactions regarding some bank accounts maintained by the petitioner either separately or jointly with Mehbooba Mufti.
Court said simply on the basis of the report of the J&K CID, which did not recommend to issue passport, the Passport Officer under the provisions of Passport Act has not to shut his eyes and to act on that.
“Since the passport applied for by the petitioner has not been issued as the same was not recommended for security clearance by the CID, the decision taken by both, Passport Officer as well as the appellant authority, is misplaced on account of security”, Justice Chowdhary said.
Court added that at least Passport Officer should have, in the background of the facts and circumstances, if required, asked the police and CID agency as to whether there is anything adverse against the petitioner. In such a situation without going into the PVR, refusal on part of the Passport Officer simply be termed as non-application of mind.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
