Judgment:
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that an appropriate writ, order or directions be issued to non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 to either immediately prosecute Shri Ranjeet Singh under Section 12(1) and Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 or the petitioner may be permitted, under Section 15 of the Act of 1967, to prosecute the above two persons for the offences committed by them. Alternatively, it is prayed that if the permission of the Chief Secretary of the State (respondent No. 4), before prosecuting Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act is considered necessary, then he be directed to grant such permission to non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 or to the petitioner.
2. One Shri Ranjeet Singh son of Shri Narayan Singh claiming to be resident of Plot No. 85, Sonabari, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur had applied for an urgent passport to go abroad. He had obtained a verification certificate from Shri Sanjay Dixit, IAS, the then Secretary of Department of Horticulture, State of Rajasthan. The said certificate, after certifying the personal particulars of Ranjeet Singh, had stated that Shri Ranjeet Singh bears a good moral character and reputations. Further, it states that the certificate is being issued after reading the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. He further certified that the provisions under Section 6(2) of the Passport Act are not attracted in case of the applicant. He had recommended for issuance of Indian Passport to the applicant. It was also stated that the applicant has been staying at his address continuously for the last one year. The certificate was given in format (Annexure-G) attached to the Passport Rules, 1980. Such certificate is required for the purpose of issuance of passport, without police verification. On the basis of the said certificate alone, non-petitioner No. 3 had issued passport, bearing No. A- 046575/2007, to Shri Ranjeet Singh on 05.07.2007.
3. The said passport was obtained on the basis of a false declaration and by suppressing material facts. The person who had obtained the passport on the basis of a false declaration by suppressing material facts, tried to leave India so as to avoid many serious criminal cases pending against him and the warrants issued by the Courts. He was then arrested at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and taken into custody because a letter had been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur to Immigration Officer, Airport, Jaipur (Annexure-3) enclosing the personal particulars about the applicant Ranjeet Singh against whom various criminal cases were pending and in other cases conviction had been awarded. It is relevant to note here that the criminal record of Shri Ranjeet Singh which had been sent by the Superintendent of Police alongwith letter dated 25.10.2007 to the Immigration Officer reads as follows:
jk/k';ke njksxk mQ+Z j.kthr flag njksxk fuoklh xsfn;k rg~- VksMkjk;flag gky fuoklh 85 lksukckMh xksikyiqjk t;iqj ds f[kykQ fuEu eqdnes izdj.k izdk'k esa vk;s gS A blds vfrfjDr Hkh dbZ Fkkuks es vkSj eqdnesa rQ~rh'k ds ckn lkeus vk ldrs gSA
1- eq-u-237@95 /kkjk 341] 323 IPC Fkkuk VksMjk;flag uUnyky njksxk cuke j.kthr QSlyk yfEcr2- eq-u-238@95 /kkjk 452] 323&34 IPC Fkkuk VksMjk;flag izHkqyky eh.kk cuke j.kthr FR N-98/97 Date 03-12-973(5)(10) SC/ST3- eq-u-286@95 /kkjk 467] 468] 420] Fkkuk VksMjk;flag izgykn eh.kk cuke j.kthr FR N-1/98 Date 12-01-98120B IPC4- eq-u-314@95 /kkjk 147] 452] 427 Fkkuk VksMjk;flag izgykn eh.k cuke j.kthr &&&&3/5 SC/ST IPC5- eq-u-315@95 /kkjk 147] 452] 504 Fkkuk VksMjk;flag jkepUnz dyky efnjk lewg ltk ifjoh{kk 15&07&89323 IPC cuke j.kthr 6- eq-u-309@96 /kkjk 224 IPC Fkkuk VksMjk;flag /kujke eh.k p-Js-d- ltk 14&05&04cuke j.kthr7- eq-u-142@90 /kkjk 453 IPC Fkkuk ctkt uxj &&&& pktZ'khV ua 125@90t;iqj8- eq-u-143@90 /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV Fkkuk ctkt uxj &&&& pktZ'khV ua 151@90t;iqj9- eq-u-725@97 /kkjk 448] 453] 467] Fkkuk lksMkyk lqjs'k tSu cuke j.kthr pktZ'khV ua 93@98468] 471 IPC10- eq-u-727@97 /kkjk 448] 453] 467 Fkkuk lksMkyk lqjs'k tSu cuke j.kthr pktZ'khV ua 94@98468] 471 IPC11- eq-u-94@04 /kkjk 420] 465] 467 Fkkuk T;ksfr uxj fnus'k 'kekZ cuke j.kthr tekur [kkfjt 28&05&04468] 471] 474 120B IPC 12- eq-u-252@97 /kkjk 147] 341 Fkkuk cuhikdZ &&&& &&&&323 IPC 3 SC/ST 13. FIR No. /kkjk 420] 406] 418 Fkkuk fo/kkulHkk bZ'ojyky cuke j.kthr tekur [kkfjt 16&01&04182/03 424, 120B IPC14. FIR No. /kkjk 420] 467] 468 Fkkuk egs'k uxj e/kqyrk tSu cuke j.kthr fnukad 15&04&0599/0515. FIR No. /kkjk 379 IPC Fkkuk cuhikdZ ftyk fo'ks'k 'kk[kk t;iqj &&&&114/05 cuke j.kthr16. FIR No. /kkjk 379 IPC Fkkuk cuhikdZ ftyk eftLVsV t;iqj &&&&123/05 cuke j.kthr17- bLrxklk /kkjk 107 Fkkuk egs'k uxj &&&& 05&06&20031163 tk-QkS-18- bLrxklk /kkjk 110 tk-QkS- Fkkuk ctkt uxj &&&& o'kZ 1990t;iqj19- bLrkxklk /kkjk 110 tk-QkS- Fkkuk egs'k uxj &&&& 23&04&2004vknruvijk/kh ?kksf'kr20- FIR No. /kkjk 420] 465] 467 Fkkuk fo/kkulHkk izgykn cuke j.kthr CID/CB94/04 468, 471, 474 (filed by the petitioner) rQ~rh'k120B IPCj.kthr flag njksxk fuoklh xsfn;k rg- VksMjk;flag gky fuoklh 85 lksukckM+h xksikyiqjk t;iqj ds uke ij 19 Kkr eqdnes gS A ftudh QgfjLr l?ku tkWap ds ckn c< ldrh gS A ;g O;fDr vfrfjDr ftyk eftLVsV t;iqj nf{k.k }kjk 2004 ea vknru vijk/kh ?kksf'kr gks pqdk gS A
;g O;fDr cpiu ls vkokjk VkbZi jgk gS rFkk ckgj ds vlkekftd rRoks ds lkFk feydj fxjksg cukuk rFkk lekt esa vkrad QSykuk budk is'kk cu x;k gS A
;g O;fDr lekt ds detksj rcds dks xUnh ukyh dhM+k le>rk gS A ftldk mnkgj.k bl ij Kkr 5 dsl vuq- tkfr@tutkfr mRihM+u ds gS A
;g O;fDr 'kjkc ekfQ;k gS A tks eqdnek ua- 315@95 ls lkfcr gksrk gS A ftlesa bls ltk Hkh gks pqdh gS A
;g O;fDr NksVs ljdkjh deZpkjh;ksa ij dHkh Hkh gkFk mBk nsrk gS A ftldk lcwr eqdnek ua- 309@96 ftlesa lt;kirk gS A
;g O;fDr Hkw ekfQ;k gS A tehuksa ij voS/k dCts muds QthZ nLrkost rS;kj djuk rFkk mUgsa cspdj /ku vftZr djuk bldk 'kkSd ,oa is'kk gS A eqdnek ua- 725@97] 727@97] 182@03] 94@04] 99@05 bl ckr dk lcwr gS A
;g O;fDr voS/k gfFk;kj Loa; j[krk gS rFkk [kjhn Qjks[r dk /ka/kk djrk gS A ftldk lcwr eqdnek ua- 143@90 gS A
;g O;fDr ljdkjh dk;kZy; ;gkWa rd fd Fkkus rd ls fjdkMZ xk;c djus dh dqOor j[krk gS A tks eqdnek ua- 114@05 ,oa 123@05 ls lkfcr gksrh gS A tks fd iqfyl Fkkus ls fjdkMZ xk;c djus ckcr gS A
4. The petitioner then approached the Ministry of External Affairs and the Passport Officer for taking action against Shri Ranjeet Singh under Section 12(1) and Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. When no action was taken against both the persons, the petitioner moved an application on 25.07.2008 (Annexure-4) for grant of permission to launch prosecution under Section 15 of the Passport Act. Subsequently, in the month of September, 2008, the petitioner received a communication from the Ministry of External Affairs dated 11.09.2008 stating that permission is required to be granted by Passport Officer, Jaipur, since it is he who has been made to believe the fact which did not exist and led him to issue the passport. On receipt of the said communication, letter was sent to the Passport Officer on 22.09.2008 for passing an order granting sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act to launch prosecution.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act to the Passport Officer, Jaipur for providing various information and documents including departmental action taken; complete report prepared and report sent to the Ministry of External Affairs. The said application was rejected vide order dated 29.12.2008 on the ground that such information is barred, under Section 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act, for violation of privacy. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Passport Officer & Joint Secretary (CPV), Ministry of External Affairs. The appeal was allowed on 12.03.2009 and the Passport Officer, Jaipur was directed to give information within 15 days (Annexure-8).
On 27.03.2009 (Annexure-9), the Passport Officer, Jaipur informed the petitioner that he is not permitted to launch prosecution against any of the two persons. However, a perusal of the letter reveal that non-petitioner No. 1 and 2 had taken some decision on the complaint filed by the petitioner; directed non-petitioner No. 3 to comply with the instructions which included writing of a letter to non-petitioner No. 4 asking him to take action under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act and to inform the office so that further action can be taken at their end.
6. Meanwhile, the petitioner had written a letter on 26.03.2009 for giving complete information as desired by him under Right to Information Act and according to the order of the Appellate Authority. On 28.04.2009 (Annexure-11), nonpetitioner No. 2, instead of giving any information, had stated that sufficient information was given to him in the previous communication dated 27.03.2009. The petitioner again moved an application under Right to Information Act to the Passport Officer (Annexure-12) and to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, respondent No. 4 (Annexure-13) requesting for information regarding the communication sent by respondent No. 2. The said application was rejected by respondent No. 4 on 02.07.2009 (Annexure-14) stating that it is not possible to make available the information under Section 8(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005. When no action for prosecution was taken by the respondents against both the persons under Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Passport Act and no sanction was provided to him under Section 15 of the Passport Act, then the petitioner filed this writ petition, with the aforesaid prayer.
7. The case of the petitioner is that non-petitioners have failed to initiate prosecution against the two persons, in such a serious matter, which clearly reveals that they being public officials, have failed to proceed in accordance to law. Further, the petitioner ought to have been given sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act to prosecute such persons but even the same has been refused. In other words, the respondents are neither launching prosecution against the guilty nor they are giving sanction to the petitioner for prosecuting them. Furthermore, it has been submitted that though anyone can file a complaint or report for initiating prosecution but since, under the relevant law, prosecution can be launched only with the previous sanction of the Central Government that an application was moved by the petitioner. But the said application has been rejected by a summary order, much less to say, by giving any cogent reasons.
It is reflected from the sequence of the events that the respondents are not only dis-interested in taking up the matter in accordance with law but they are also delaying it so that the issue dies out on its own. It has been submitted that the order dated 27.03.2009 issued by the Passport Officer is bad in law as it does not give any reason whatsoever. Moreover, the said order does not mention anything about the action taken by the respondents in respect of the prosecution against the two persons who have committed offence under Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Passport Act. Further, it is submitted that the offence committed by Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the Act is not in his official capacity but solely on his personal knowledge. Therefore, it does not require any sanction of the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan before initiating prosecution against him.
The instant case is a one which shows that the persons committing offence, if having high status or connection and are IAS officers then they are protected as a matter of right. This clearly gives a grave threat to the very existing Rule of law in the country. Non-petitioners are duty bound to prosecute all those who are violating the provisions of the Passport Act. There lies no discretion with the respondents so as to deal differently in case of status and political affluent persons. It was only because the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur was vigilant to have informed the Immigration Officer vide letter dated 25.10.2007 that Ranjeet Singh was arrested at Delhi Airport on 27.10.2007. Otherwise, he would have achieved his object of fleeing from the country, to avoid the trial of the criminal cases pending against him, on the basis of the passport obtained by him after suppressing the facts about his personal particulars.
It has been submitted that the concerning person is equally responsible for committing the offence under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act by issuing the verification certificate containing the facts which do not exist and the same led the Passport Officer to issue the passport. Therefore, it has been submitted that the respondents have failed in their duty to immediately launch prosecution under the Passport Act. Moreover, the very fact that the respondents have denied sanction to the petitioner for launching prosecution against the two persons also goes to show that appropriate directions needs to be issued against the respondents, by this Court.
8. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a joint reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3. The respondents have raised the objections that the petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it has been objected that there are disputed questions of facts which can only be proved by leading evidence in accordance to procedure prescribed under law. Another objection raised by the respondents is that the writ petition merits rejection because Sanjay Dixit has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition. It has been stated by the respondents that the petitioner ought to have initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance to procedure prescribed by law. It has also been stated in the reply that 'Moreover, the answering respondents have already initiated process in accordance with the procedure and instructions to take action in the event of furnishing a wrong/false Verification Certificate. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on that count alone.' It is stated in the reply that by the communication dated 17.08.2007 received from the Office of Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur City, Jaipur, it was learnt that criminal cases were pending against Ranjeet Singh who was issued a verification certificate by Shri Sanjay Dixit, IAS officer.
Further, it has been stated in the reply that after having received the report from the office of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur on 01.11.2007, Ranjeet Singh was served with a show cause notice on 07.11.2007 for suppressing material information while making an application for passport on 04.07.2007, in response to which passport bearing No. G-3387042 was issued to him on 05.07.2007. It may be noted here that though the said report is marked as Annexure- R1-3/1 but the same has not been placed on record alongwith the reply. It is stated by the respondents that Shri Sanjay Dixit was also called upon to reply and explain the factual aspects, vide communication dated 14.11.2007, enclosing a copy of the report received from the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South) Jaipur in respect of pending criminal cases against Ranjeet Singh. It has also been stated in the reply that Shri Ranjeet Singh did not respond to the aforesaid show cause notice within the stipulated period of seven days and the office of Regional Passport Officer (respondents No. 3) exercising the powers under Section 5(2)(c) read with Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 revoked the passport of Ranjeet Singh, vide order dated 04.12.2007 (Annexure-R1-3/4).
It is the case of the respondents that vide communication dated 06.05.2008, Shri Sanjay Dixit was called upon, detailing out the reference of earlier letter dated 14.11.2007, specifically pointing out the fact that Ranjeet Singh had applied for passport on 04.07.2007 alongwith the verification certificate issued by him (Shri Sanjay Dixit), and later on it was learnt, in view of the information furnished by Superintendent of Police, that criminal cases were pending against Shri Ranjeet Singh and requested for an oral reply. A copy of the said letter dated 06.05.2008 was also forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for information and necessary action, enclosing the report of the Superintendent of Police and verification certificate issued by Shri Sanjay Dixit. The Regional Passport Officer (respondent No. 3), vide his letter dated 25.08.2008, also informed the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi about grant of passport to Ranjeet Singh, enclosing all the relevant documents, seeking necessary instructions in the matter. He was then informed by the Ministry of External Affairs on 26th/27th September 2008 that in such matters the concerned Passport Officer should have informed the Head of the Department of the officer concerned in cases where the verification certificate issued by the officer later turns out to be incorrect.
Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 01.10.2008, had also informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, detailing out all the facts and circumstances of the case with reference to verification certificate issued by Shri Sanjay Dixit in favour of Ranjeet Singh on the basis of which passport was issued. It was further stated that after police verification, it was found that several cases were pending against Ranjeet Singh and the communication made by Sanjay Dixit on 29.10.2007, informing the passport officer about his intention to withdraw the verification certificate after Ranjeet Singh was arrested by the Rajasthan Police at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 27.10.2007, which was too late. Moreover, there is no provision to withdraw the verification certificate once issued. It was specifically pointed out that keeping in view the provision of Section 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967, the matter was being brought to the notice of the Head of the Department and action may be initiated at the earliest against Shri Sanjay Dixit. The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan was again requested on 08.06.2009, with reference to the request made on 01.10.2008, to do the needful as nothing was heard in response so far.
It is also stated in the reply that vide communication dated 11.09.2008 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was informed that it is the Passport Issuing Authority who can take recourse to under Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967 and not a person unaffected or third party or the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the reply that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of personnel & Training, vide communication dated 30.06.2009, informed respondent No. 3 with reference to the letter dated 31.08.2008, levelling certain allegation against Shri Sanjay Dixit. It was further informed that the State Government vide letter dated 13.05.2009 had mentioned that the act of Shri Sanjay Dixit is a violation of provisions of Passport Act, 1967, therefore, action may be taken by the Passport Office only.
Respondent No. 3 then addressed a communication on 21.08.2009 to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs with reference to State Government letter dated 13.05.2009 and the communication received from the Department of Personnel & Training, seeking necessary instructions in the matter. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 received another communication on 10th/11th September, 2009 from Department of Personnel calling for information about action proposed to be taken against Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 (Annexure- R1-3/10). Respondent No. 3 informed the Department of Personnel & Training on 22.09.2009 (Annexure-R1-3/11), that as per the instructions received from the Ministry of External Affairs action in such matters is to be taken by the Department, of the Officer concerned who issued the verification certificate. It has been specifically stated by the respondents in the reply that the action against Shri Sanjay Dixit is to be taken by the Head of the Department i.e. employer at present (State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 4). On the aforesaid premise, respondents have prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
9. Before adverting to the merits of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the rival parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, which are as follows:
2(c):- 'passport authority' means an officer or authority empowered under rules made under this Act to issue passports or travel documents and includes the Central Government.
5. Applications for passports, travel documents, etc., and orders thereon.-1[(1) An application for the issue of a passport under this Act for visiting such foreign country or countries (not being a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application may be made to the passport authority and shall be accompanied by 2[Such fee as may be prescribed to meet the expenses incurred on special security paper, printing, lamination and other connected miscellaneous services in issuing passports and other travel documents].
(1-A) An application for the issue of-
(i) a passport under this Act for visiting a named foreign country; or
(ii) a travel document under this Act, for visiting such foreign country or countries (including a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application or for an endorsement on the passport or travel document referred to in this section,
(2) On receipt of an application 3[under this section], the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by order in writing,-
(a) issue the passport or travel documents with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application; or
(b) issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or
(c) refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement.
6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no other ground, namely:
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest'
10(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document.
(a) if the passport authority is satisfied that the holder of the passport or travel document is in wrongful possession thereof;
(b) if the passport or travel document was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the passport or travel document or any other person on his behalf:
1[Provided that if the holder of such passport obtains another passport the passport authority shall also impound or cause to be impounded or revoke such other passport.]
(c) if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public;
(d) if the holder of the passport or travel document has, at any time after the issue of the passport or travel document, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India;
(f) if any of the conditions of the passport or travel document has been contravened;
(g) if the holder of the passport or travel document has failed to comply with a notice under Sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the same;
(h) if it is brought to the notice of the passport authority that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the holder of the passport or travel document has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or if an order prohibiting the departure from India of the holder of the passport or other travel document has been made by any such court and the passport authority is satisfied that a warrant or summons has been so issued or an order has been so made.
12. Offences and penalties (1) Whoever-
(a) contravenes the provisions of Section 3; or
(b) knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a. view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alters or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or
(c) fails to produce for inspection his passport or travel document (whether issued under this Act or not) when called upon to do so by the prescribed authority; or
(d) knowingly uses a passport or travel document issued to another person; or
(e) knowingly allows another person to use a passport or travel document issued to him, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees] or with both.
3[(1-A) Whoever, not being a citizen of India,-
(a) makes an application for a passport or obtains a passport by suppressing information about in nationality, or
(b) holds a forged passport or any travel document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees]
(2) Whoever abets any offence punishable under 4[subsection (1) or Sub-section (1-A)] shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided in that Sub-section for that offence.
15. Previous sanction of Central Government necessary.- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Central Government or such officer or authority as may be authorized by that Government by order in writing in this behalf.'
10. The aforesaid relevant provisions of Passport Act provides for issue of passports and travel documents. It provides that an application for a passport in the prescribed format is to be submitted by the applicant. Such format has been prescribed with the Passport Rules, 1980. The provisions enjoins a duty on the Passport Officer to make necessary inquiries before issuance of passport so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are not violated and any person having criminal record or criminal cases pending, is not able to leave the country in order to defeat the provisions of the Indian Penal Law. Passport is to be refused, under Section 6, in case the applicant has been convicted by a Court of law in the country in the past five years for any offence involving moral turpitude with imprisonment not less than two years. Passport is also to be refused to person against whom criminal case is pending and warrants have been issued by a competent court of law or an order of prohibition for departure from the country has been passed by any court. Similar are the provisions for renewal of passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1967 signifies that a person of criminal character is not to be issued a passport. The object behind is that person who has committed an offence in the country should be prosecuted; face trial before a competent court of law and punished so as to maintain the Rule of law and not to defeat the provisions of law by fleeing from the country.
A bare look to the format given under Annexure-G of the Passport Rules of 1980 pertaining to verification certificate goes to show that no officer is to give such certificate until and unless he is well convinced of the character of the person concerned and that he has the personal knowledge about his not having any disability under Section 6(2) of the Act. Since such certificate is substituted for police verification, heavy responsibility lies on the officer issuing the same to ensure the veracity of each and every fact given in the certificate.
11. A careful consideration of the facts and the material on record, including the record of the office of the Passport Officer, Jaipur-respondent No. 3, reveals peculiar circumstances in the present case. It is a case where initially immense wealth is collected in an illegal manner by hook or by crook resulting in involvement in a number of criminal cases. Thereafter, cloak of politician worn by usurping posts in a democratic institution by means of terror in the society and ultimately tried to flee from the country with the help of bureaucrats when about to be caught by the clutches of laws. A number of criminal cases under various offences were pending against the applicant for passport, as given in Para 3 above. He was a history sheeter and wanted by the police. Thereafter, he was elected as the chairman of Mandi Samiti and his wife became Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Todaraisingh, District, Tonk. When the law enforcing machinery was about to corner the applicant and take him in its custody, he, with the help of a senior Member of State Bureaucracy namely Sanjay Dixit by getting a verification certificate of good moral character and reputation, obtained a Tatkal Passport from the office of Passport Officer, Jaipur. He nearly succeeded in fleeing from the country and go to Bangkok but to his dismay, he was caught at the International Airport, Delhi by the Immigrant Officer because of the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South), enclosing the personal particulars and details of criminal cases.
The plan to go abroad at the earliest, was chalked out on the basis of an emergent passport (Tatkal), where police verification is not required prior to issuance of the passport and the time consumed in the usual procedure is saved. As a substitute of police report with regard to the credentials of the applicant for passport, verification certificate in form 'G' of the Rules is required to be furnished which is to be issued by a prescribed authority under the rules. It goes without saying that such a certificate would only be issued by authority who is very close to the applicant for passport. In the instant case, the said certificate was issued by a senior bureaucrat of the State namely Shri Sanjay Dixit, IAS, the then Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Government of Rajasthan. It was clearly mentioned in the verification certificate that 'Shri Ranjeet Singh S/o Narain Singh whose personal particulars are given below has good moral character and reputation and that after having read the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967, has certified that these provisions are not attracted in case of those applicants and I recommend issue of an independent passport to him. The applicant has been staying at his address continuously for the last one year.'
12. Section 6(2) of the Act of 1967 provides that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country on any one or more of the grounds mentioned in it. The grounds include that the applicant has at any time, during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India and that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such Court. The verification certificate issued in favour of Ranjeet Singh clearly stated that the grounds of refusal of passport mentioned in Section 6(2) of the Act have been looked into and none of them are found attracted in the case of the applicant. Therefore, the authority recommended the issuance of passport to him. The application for passport was submitted along with an affidavit of the applicant which also categorically deposing as under:
4. That I have not at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding of date of this affidavit being convicted by any court in India.
5. That no proceeding in respect of any criminal offence alleged to have been committed by me or pending before any criminal court in India.
6. That no warrant or summons for my appearance and no warrant for my arrest has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force, and that my departure from India has not been prohibited by order of any such court.
13. Thereupon the concerning authority, namely the Passport Officer, Jaipur issued the passport on 5.7.07 i.e. to say within a day or two of filing of the application dated 3.7.07 and the receipt of fee had been issued on 4.7.07. Subsequently, after verifying about the applicant for passport, the Superintendent of Police (South) submitted a report to the Passport Officer on 17.8.07 mentioning the details about the criminal cases registered/pending against him. But the Passport Officer took nearly a month thereafter i.e. on 12.9.07 to take steps for issuing show cause notice to the applicant. Reply to the show cause notice came on 28.9.07. Thereafter, the matter was sent to the Superintendent of Police for re-verification on 4.10.2007. The concerning SHO gave report on 30.11.07 mentioning details of about two dozen cases, under various offences including the offence of moral turpitude, pending against Ranjeet Singh and also mentioning that he is a declared history sheeter. A report was also sent by the Superintendent on 1.11.07 mentioning about the criminal cases, 18 in number, pending against the applicant for passport.
14. A show cause notice was again given by the Passport Office to Ranjeet Singh on 7.11.07. Another notice was issued to Shri Sanjay Dixit on 14.11.07 (Annex.R/1/3/3) requesting him to investigate as to why the facts were not brought to his attention by the applicant at the time of issuance of verification certificate. It is rather strange on the part of the Passport Officer to have made such a request instead of seeking show cause as to why prosecution under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1967 may not be initiated against him for having abetted an offence punishable under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (1-A) on furnishing of false information or suppressing the material information by the applicant with a view to obtain a passport, for which he had made recommendations by issuing verification certificate stating that Ranjeet Singh had good moral character and reputation and the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act of 1967 are not attracted in his case, despite of the fact that not only criminal cases were pending, including that of moral turpitude, he was declared history sheeter and wanted by the police for which warrants had been issued against him. Ultimately, the passport of Ranjeet Singh was impounded under Section 5(2)(c) of the Act of 1967 only on 7.12.07.
Therefore, it would be seen that there had been inordinate delay in impounding the passport of Ranjeet Singh even though the fact regarding furnishing of false information and suppression of material information by the applicant for the passport came to the notice of the concerning authority as on 27.8.07. It took them nearly a month to issue show cause notice to the applicant on 12.9.07 and nearly four months i.e. 14.12.07 to impound his passport. No steps were taken to suspend the passport. Had the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (South) not sent a letter to the Immigration Officer in respect of the criminal cases and personal particulars of Ranjeet Singh in time, he had nearly succeeded in crossing over to Bangkok. This aspect of the matter had also been taken note of by the Ministry of External Affairs in his letter dated 26.9.08 issued to the Passport Officer, Jaipur.
15. The petitioner, who had been one of the informant in criminal cases which were registered against the applicant for passport, had approached the Ministry of External Affairs and the Passport Officer for taking action against Rajneet Singh under Section 12(1) and Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. When no action was taken against both the persons, petitioner moved an application on 25.7.08 for grant of permission to launch prosecution under Section 15 of the Passport Act. Thereafter, the Passport Officer had written to the Ministry of External Affairs on 25.8.08 seeking necessary instructions. The Ministry of External Affairs had sent a communication to the petitioner on 11.9.08 stating that permission is required to be granted by the Passport Office, Jaipur since he had been made to believe the fact which did not exist and led him to issue a passport to Ranjeet Singh. A copy of the office letter had also been sent to the Passport Officer, Jaipur. Thereupon, the petitioner requested the Passport Officer on 27.9.08 for issuing an order granting sanction under Section 15 of the Passport Act to launch the prosecution against both the persons.
16. Again on 26.9.08, the External Affairs Ministry wrote to the Passport Officer, Jaipur to take action and confirm the same. It had also asked the Passport officer to send a communication to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan and enclosed a draft mentioning the points to be covered in the said communication. On 1.10.08, the Passport Officer sent a letter to the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan. Subsequent to it, there is nothing on record to show as to what steps/actions were taken by the concerning authorities in the matter upto the month of June, 2009.
A reminder was sent on 8.6.09 seeking information on the action taken so far. It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that since the Officer (Sanjay Dixit) belonged to Rajasthan Cadre, the matter was referred to the State of Rajasthan for a report and the State Government, vide their letter dated 13.5.09, has informed that as the act of Sanjay Dixit is in violation of Passport Act, the action in the matter is to be taken by the Passport Office only. Therefore, it was requested that action taken/ being taken or proposed to be taken may be intimated to the Department at an early date. After receiving the said letter, directions were sought by the Passport Office from Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, New Delhi.
The Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension had again issued an office memorandum marked as 'confidential/ most urgent' on 11.9.09 requesting that the information called for in the earlier letter dated 30.6.09 may be furnished to the Department at the earliest. It is rather strange to note that thereafter the Passport Officer, Jaipur had sent a letter to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension on 28.9.09 stating that in accordance with the instructions of Ministry of External Affairs, a letter was written to the State of Rajasthan on 1.10.08 to take necessary action against the concerning Officer Shri Sanjay Dixit, but the Passport Office has not received any response from them. However, it is also mentioned that the Deputy Secretary (Personnel), State of Raj. had sent a letter to the Department of Personnel, Government of India on 13.5.09, a copy of which has been received by the office of the Passport Officer, Jaipur along with the earlier letter of the Department of Personnel. On the said basis, it is stated in the letter of the Passport Officer, Jaipur that according to the instructions issued by the External Affairs Ministry, the action is to be taken by the Department of the concerned officer who had issued the verification certificate.
In other words, the Passport Officer, Jaipur (respondent No. 3), has informed the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India that the action against the officer has to be taken by the State of Rajasthan which is the Department of the officer Shri Sanjay Dixit, despite of the fact that they had not only received the copy of order dated 13.5.09 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan but had also made a reference to it in the very letter dated 22.9.09 sent to the Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India. This leaves no room of doubt that the things are being made to shuttle from one office to another, on one pretext or the other and no proper enquiry/investigation is intended to be taken by anyone including the Passport Officer, Jaipur (respondent No. 3).
17. As regards the averment made by the respondents in their reply that the petitioner ought to have initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would suffice to say that under Section 15 of the Passport Act, 1967 previous sanction by the Central Government is required before launching any prosecution under the Act. Though the respondents have stated in their reply that they have already initiated process in accordance with the procedure and instructions to take action in the event of furnishing a wrong / false verification certificate but nothing has been said as to when and in what manner the process has been initiated. The fact remains that till date no steps for launching prosecution against the guilty has been taken, much less to say initiation of process against them. It is astonishing to note that no prosecution has been initiated against applicant of passport, Ranjeet Singh for which no sanction, guidelines, instructions etc. are required. In the garb of the inter-office correspondences with regard to Sanjay Dixit, no prosecution has been started even against the other person.
18. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly show as to how in the instant case the law is being violated, the procedure is being misused in connivance with influential persons, leaders of the society and the bureaucrats. Despite of the information having been received well in time, the matter is being allowed to be prolonged through paper formalities which has resulted in delaying the matter with the object that ultimately the issue dies out on its own, with the passage of time. Such criminal and unscrupulous persons, with the help of members of the intelligentsia, that is, the bureaucrats achieve their goals by throwing to the winds the Rule of law. It is yet another case where the rich, powerful and influential resorted to delay the matter.
19. In the instant case, the appropriate legal action is not being taken by the competent authorities/officers since the month of August, 2007 so much so that it took them more than four months to impound an important document like a passport even after having come to know that the same was got issued on furnishing false information and suppression of material facts. Taking into consideration the sequence of events; the manner in which the concerning authorities have been proceeding and failure on their part to do the duty in accordance with law, leaves no room of doubt that the mandate of law is not being followed by them nor they have been proceeding to act in accordance with it, for the reasons best known to them. The obvious reason appears to be that persons of eminence in their own fields; such as crime, bureaucracy and the concerning officers/authorities are involved/lending support in the matter.
20. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of allegations and the mighty and influential people alleged to be involved, it is deemed just and proper to mould the prayer in the writ petition as laid down in the case of Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. : (2007) 4 SCC 380 and entrust the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating the alleged violation of law in obtaining/abetting to obtain passport, by furnishing false information and suppressing material personal information; the officers who have failed in their duty to take action in accordance with law and all other persons who are involved in the present case for delay in launching prosecution against the erring persons. People of this country have high-hopes from CBI, the prime Investigating Agency, which does work and give results. It is hoped that CBI would justify the confidence of the people and this Court, reposed in them.
One is reminded of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi and Ors. : (1996) 6 SCC 500, in Para 11, as under:
We deem it proper to emphasize that every officer of the CBI associated with the investigation has to function as a member of a cohesive team which is engaged in the common pursuit of a fair, honest and complete investigation into the crimes alleged. It is needless to further emphasize that the exercise has to be performed objectively and fairly, mindful of the fact that the majesty of law has to be upheld and the rule of law preserved, which does not discriminate between individuals on the basis of their status, position or powers.
21. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. The Registrar (Administration), of this Court shall communicate a copy of this order to Director, CBI accompanied by one set of paper book so that CBI may apprise itself of the allegations for the purpose of initiation of investigation, forthwith. It is expected that the investigation would be accomplished with result within a reasonable expedition and hopefully within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The record of the office of Passport Officer, Jaipur shall be collected by the Investigating Officer from the custody of the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court. The Investigating Officer shall proceed without any loss of time. On the offence being disclosed, the CBI shall register the same against such persons as may be suspected to be involved. The parties are given liberty to seek directions by moving appropriate application as and when necessary.
22. Before parting with the matter, it is clarified that whatsoever has been stated hereinabove, is based only on the statements contained in the pleadings of the parties, and is not intended in any manner, to record a finding or to be a reflection of any of the parties or anyone concerned.