- (1.) The present controversy relates to the action of the respondents in denying a passport to petitioner No.1 Gagadeep Singh the minor adopted son of petitioner No.2 Manjit Kaur. When the issue pertaining to the controversy came to be canvassed before this Court in the first instance, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed emphatic reliance on a decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Deep Singh v. Union of India and another AIR 2004 (Punjab) 106. In Pawan Deep Singh's case (supra), the petitioner who was an applicant for a passport, had been adopted by his uncle living in Italy. Pawan Deep Singh's application for the grant of a passport was turned down because his adoption by his uncle living in Italy was considered to be invalid. The controversy raised in the present case is substantially similar to the one raised in Pawan Deep Singh's case. Gagandeep Singh, Petitioner No.1 in the present case, has been adopted by his aunt ( sister of the natural mother of petitioner No.1.) Manjit Kaur, petitioner No.2. Gagandeep Singh has also been denied a passport on the ground that his adoption by his aunt Manjit Kaur is not being considered valid.
(2.) While adjudicating upon the controversy referred to in the foregoing paragraph, a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Deep Singh's case (supra) had the occasion to examine Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Passports Act"). It was thereupon concluded, that the Passport Authorities could refuse to issue a passport to an applicant, on any one or more of the nine grounds expressed in Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, and on no other ground. While dealing with the same contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner (in the present case) for the same relief as had been granted to the petitioner in Pawan Deep Singh's case (supra), this Court passed the following order on 9.5.2007: " The respondents have refused to issue a passport to petitioner No.1. It is, therefore, that the instant writ petition has been filed, impugning the action of the respondents in declining to issue a passport to petitioner No.1. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, to assail the action of the respondents, is based on a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Deep Singh v. Union of India and another, AIR 2004 (Punjab) 106. In the aforesaid case, while interpreting section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, the Full Bench observed as under : "9. A bare perusal of Section 6 aforementioned shows that except on four grounds mentioned in sub-section(1) and nine grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 6 on no other ground there could be refusal to grant Passport or travel document ." It is necessary, however, to notice that there was no discussion on the matter and no other provision, besides section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, was taken into consideration. It would, however, be pertinent to mention that section 6 commences with the words "Subject to the other provisions of this Act...". It is, therefore, apparent, that the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, envisage grounds for refusal of a passport to an applicant, other than the 13 grounds noticed by the Full Bench, in the extract, reproduced by us, hereinabove. Learned counsel for the respondents submits, that other grounds for refusal of a passport, besides those mentioned under section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, emerge from sections 5(2) and 10(3) of the said Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, accordingly, submits that the matter in hand cannot be deemed to be completely and effectively adjudicated upon in the decision rendered by this Court in Pawan Deep Singh's case (supra). It would, therefore, be in the fitness of matter, that the controversy should be re-adjudicated by a Full Bench of this Court. Since the issue is of vital interest and arises for consideration repeatedly at short intervals, it would be in the interest of all concerned that the issue be taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest. In view of the above, Hon'ble the Chief Justice may constitute a Full Bench, for the aforesaid purpose, at the earliest. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to place this order for his Lordship's perusal, without any further delay."
(3.) The order passed by the Division Bench on 9.5.2007, resulted in the constitution of the present Full Bench.;