Serial No. 18
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 447/2023
Syed Maahin Saleem Geelani
Petitioner(s)
…
Through: -
Mr Molvi Aijaz Ahmad, Advocate.
V/s
Union of India & Ors.
… Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI for R-1 & 2; and
Mr Syed Musaib, Dy. AG for R-3.
CORAM:
Rajnesh Oswal, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr Justice
(ORDER)
31.01.2024
01. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
02. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
03. The petitioner, claiming to be a minor, has filed the present
petition through his mother for directing the respondents, more particularly
the respondent No.2, to issue/ re-issue the passport in his favour, in respect
of which he has submitted an application under Key No. 1064975144220
with ARN No. 20-0006788268. It is stated that the petitioner has qualified
th
9 Class and requires fresh passport for education purposes and that no case
has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have
applied under the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act with the respondents
so as to know the status of his application through Registered post, but he
was not provided any information.
04. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner is that he is not having
any criminal antecedents which may debar the issuance/ re-issuance of
passport in his favour.
05. Reply stands filed on behalf of the respondents.
06. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted that the petitioner,
in the year 2020, had applied for issuance of passport in his favour and that
his application was forwarded to the concerned Senior Superintendent of
th
Police for verification of his character and antecedents on 28 of October,
th
2020. Thereafter, the CID/ Police Verification report was received on 26
of April, 2023 with the remarks as not recommended . It is further stated
“ ”
th
that a detailed report was also sought vide letter dated 8 of August, 2023,
th
which was received from the Jammu & Kashmir CID on 6 of October,
2023, again with the observation that on the basis of field report, passport
case of the petitioner is not recommended . It is further averred that the
“ ”
show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner by the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
07. The respondent No.3 has also filed response, stating therein
that the father of the petitioner, who was a local trained militant of HM
outfit, was arrested by the security forces in the year 1990 and, thereafter,
released after two months. It is further stated that in the year 1993, the
father of the petitioner joined the All Parties Hurriyat Conference which
split into two groups, i.e., Hurriyat (G) and Hurriyat (M). The father of the
petitioner aligned with Hurriyat (M) group, however, in 2016, he defected
from the Hurriyat (M) faction and raised his own Hurriyat component
known as National Peoples Party with the same separatist agenda. It is
the ‘ ’
also stated that the father of the petitioner is involved in FIR No. 34/2006
registered in Police Station Nigeen, Srinagar for the commission of offences
punishable under Section 13 ULA and Section 153-A IPC. The sister of the
petitioner, namely, Mehak Jan as well as his brother, namely, Fahad, are
also stated to have been married to Pakistani nationals. It is further averred
that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the claim
of the petitioner for issuance/ re-issuance of passport has been disposed of
egional Passport
as “not recommended” and forwarded to the concerned R
th
Officer vide letter dated 26 of April, 2023.
08. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted
that the father and brother of the petitioner have already been granted the
passport, however, without any rhyme or reason, the respondents are not
issuing the same in favour of the petitioner.
09. Be that as it may, it is not the stand of the respondent Nos. 1
and 2 that the application of the petitioner for issuance/ re-issuance of
passport has been rejected by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In that view of
the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition
can be disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the
application stated to have been filed by the petitioner for issuance/ re-
issuance of passport in his favour in accordance with the law and the rules
governing the subject. Ordered accordingly. Needful shall be done by the
respondent No.2 within one month from the date a copy of this order is
made available to him. The petitioner shall be at liberty to supplement his
case before the respondent No.2 for issuance/ re-issuance of passport in his
favour by producing any document in support of his claim.
10. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Rajnesh Oswal)
Judge
SRINAGAR
st
January 31 , 2024
TAHIR
“ ”