Punjab and Haryana High Court raps passport authorities for not complying with orders
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, January 10
Nearly four months after the police authorities were rapped for avoidable litigation stemming from incomplete verification reports before directing the submission of information in a standardised proforma, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stern warning to the passport and other authorities over non-compliance with the orders. The proforma, among other things, ensures comprehensive information about the status of the FIRs.
“The passport authorities are directed to implement the orders in letter and spirit. If the authorities in future fail to implement the orders, they would be hauled up in contempt proceedings,” Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted, while taking up a petition seeking direction to the Union of India and another respondent to re-issue a passport.
Justice Bansal asserted the state authorities had not started sending police verification report in the prescribed proforma, despite specific orders in two matters. The passport authorities were also not asking the police to send report in the prescribed proforma. The court had passed the orders to avoid undesired litigation. Neither the passport nor the police authorities were interested to avoid litigation.
In his earlier order passed in September last year, Justice Bansal had directed: “Henceforth, all the police officials posted within jurisdiction of this court would send their verification report in the proforma. The passport authorities are also directed to ask the police authorities to forward their report in aforesaid proforma. It would avoid delay on the part of the police officials and minimise communication among the stakeholders.”
Addressing the recurrent issue of passport denial arising from incomplete police verification reports, Justice Bansal had observed the court was daily dealing with more than 10 cases following the denial of passport. The problem primarily arose when passport authorities denied passport based on adverse police verification reports.
Justice Bansal observed the reports often lacked essential details, causing unjust passport denials. The police officials were casually disclosing that an FIR was pending against the applicant, but failed to provide its actual status. In many instances, the FIR had been cancelled, the final investigation report or challan had not been filed or the applicant had already been convicted, often with a sentence of less than two years or more than five years prior to the application.
Justice Bansal had added the passport and police authorities were earlier directed to hold a joint meeting and resolve the ongoing problem. In a meeting subsequently convened, a standardised proforma was prepared. In the proforma, it was made clear that police officials would disclose complete status.
The Bench has already made it clear that passport may be issued if an applicant is convicted five years prior to the date of application or the sentence is less than two years.
