- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Ministry of External Affairs through Passport Officer rejecting petitioner's application for grant of passport. The impugned order makes reference to the Ministry's reply dated 16.06.2010 that proposed to deny to the petitioner a favourable consideration. The contention in the writ petition is that the provision for appeal itself is made only in respect of circumstances that result in denial of passport under Section 6(2) (b), (c) and (d) of Passport Act, and the impugned order, being one which falls outside the scope of the above provisions, the writ petition was being filed.
(2.) The petitioner would contend that there are no proper reasons spelt out in the order as to why, he was being denied the passport. The State has filed its reply contending that the petitioner had been associated with a terrorist outfit and in the year 1989, he had gone to New Zealand and later to Pakistan in the year 1994 from New Zealand. During his stay in Pakistan, he had been engaged in promotion of insurrection against Government of India via radio and in the year 1996 when he was trying to enter into India through Kathmandu, he had been apprehended by the concerned police. All these facts would prove that the petitioner had been engaging in activities that endangered the solidarity and security of India. As a matter of record, the 3 rd respondent would also said that a case had been registered against the petitioner in FIR No.133 dated 06.09.1996 for alleged offences under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 124-A IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 5 Explosive Act and under Section 25, 27, 54, 59 Arms Act at Kharar, District Ropar but he was later acquitted by the Additional District Judge, Ropar. He had been earlier registered for a case in FIR No.47 dated 19.04.1988 under Sections 307, 302, 34 IPC but discharged by the trial Court. The principal contention on behalf of the State is, therefore, that the petitioner who had been connected with terrorist group and engaging in anit-India activities could not be given the passport.
(3.) The reply of the Union reiterates the contentions taken by the State and makes an issue of the fact that the petitioner had been formerly the President of the International Sikh Youth Federation (Bittoo), New Zealand. It is also stated that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner's claim for a passport on the grounds set forth under Section 6(2)(b) and (c) and there is a provision for appeal and the reading of the provisions as set out by the petitioner is not correct. The respondent would explain that their own denial of passport to the petitioner was on account of the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined the issue of passport to the petitioner. Since the order of the petitioner says no more than the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined the issue of passport and the reply also stated no more than that the Ministry declined the passport, it became necessary to secure better details and I had called upon the Union to produce in a sealed cover any classified information relating to the intelligence report on petitioner only to satisfy myself that the ultimate decision had some tangible basis, without still compromising on national security issues.;