JUDGEMENT
B. P. Dharmadhikari, J. -
(1.)Heard finally by issuing Rule making it returnable forthwith with consent.
It is not disputed that both these matters are to be heard and decided together.
(2.)Mr.Kiran Mehta, party in person, sought leave to file reply. However, our attention has been drawn to orders dated 18/09/2018 passed by Division Court in present matters, which rejected him permission to intervene. Hence we are not permitting him to file any reply or address the Court.
(3.)In Writ Petition No.526/17 challenge is to order dated 05/02/2016 passed by Appellate Authority u/s 11 of Passport Act, 1967, whereby it has impounded Petitioner's passport on the ground of suppression of criminal proceedings pending against her. The order states that passport is impounded on the ground of pendency of the criminal case u/s 10(3)(b) and (e) of Passport Act. It also concludes that as she is guilty of suppression of information relating to prosecution, it attracts provisions of section 10(3)(b) warranting impounding passport. Liberty has been given to Petitioner to apply before concerned Court, where criminal cases are pending seeking "No Objection Certificate" for restoration of passport facility. The Petitioner has been permitted to submit the same to passport officer for release of impounded passport. To justify this course of action, Appellate Authority has relied on GSR 570 (E) dated 25/08/1993. In the alternate, she has been permitted to move fresh application after acquittal from pending criminal case.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.