The court docket mentioned there may be there may be not an iota of allegation in opposition to Mehbooba Mufti’s mom. (File) Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket has pulled up authorities for denying passport to PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti’s mom, saying the passport officer can not “act as a mouthpiece”
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket has pulled up authorities for denying passport to PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti’s mom, saying the passport officer can not “act as a mouthpiece” of the CID.
Justice M A Chowdhary, whereas listening to the petition of Mehbooba Mufti’s mom Gulshan Nazir, mentioned it seems, there is no such thing as a floor to refuse her request for problem or renewal of passport.
“Even, there may be not an iota of allegation in opposition to the petitioner that will level out to any safety issues. The police verification report formulated by CID-CIK can not override the statutory provisions of Part 6 of the Passport Act 1967,” the choose mentioned in an order pronounced on Saturday.
The court docket mentioned in any other case additionally, within the report relied upon by the respondents –the passport officer and the appellant authority — nothing hostile has been recorded in opposition to the petitioner with regard to any safety issues.
“The one facet with regard to the petitioner is the reference of investigation by two companies Enforcement Directorate and the CID-CIK with regard to a number of the transactions concerning some financial institution accounts maintained by the petitioner both individually or collectively with Ms. Mehbooba Mufti,” it mentioned.
Merely on the idea of the report of the Jammu and Kashmir Crime Investigation Division (CID) that has really helpful that passport shouldn’t be issued, the passport officer, below the provisions of the Passport Act, can not “shut his eyes and to behave on that”, the court docket mentioned.
Coming down closely on authorities, it mentioned because the passport utilized for by the petitioner has not been issued as the identical was not really helpful for safety clearance by the CID, the choice taken by each – the passport officer in addition to the appellant authority – “is misplaced on account of safety”.
The court docket mentioned the refusal by the passport officer was “non-application of thoughts”.
“At the very least, the passport officer ought to have, within the background of the details and circumstances, if required, requested the police and the CID company as as to whether there may be something hostile in opposition to the petitioner,” the court docket mentioned.
“In such a scenario with out going into the police verification report, refusal on a part of the passport officer merely be termed as non-application of thoughts,” it mentioned.
After wanting into the referred details and circumstances, together with the CID report, the court docket mentioned “The passport officer has to not act as mouthpiece of the CID”.
“When an authority is vested with the ability, the identical is to be exercised judiciously and never arbitrarily as has been accomplished within the on the spot case,” it mentioned.
Justice Chowdhary mentioned it seems that the passport officer had acted on the forwarding letter of the CID as an alternative of analysing its report intimately.
It mentioned the police verification report ready by the CID was with regard to 2 purposes, one by the petitioner and the opposite by her daughter.
The report has exhaustively handled regard to the petitioner’s daughter making references to her ideology and actions which have been termed as a danger to the safety of India, the court docket mentioned.
“Nonetheless, there is no such thing as a point out with regard to the petitioner within the report in query, on the idea of which suggestion was not made to re-issue passport in favour of the petitioner and the passport officer refused to problem the identical for the rationale of ‘safety’,” it mentioned.
The appellate authority additionally appears to not have perused the police verification report and upheld the order of the passport officer, “on the mistaken premise of safety with none basis”.
The court docket mentioned it’s of the thought of opinion that the bottom on which the request of the petitioner for re-issue of the passport has been rejected “is completely untenable and unsustainable” within the eyes of the legislation.
The petitioner, who claims to be an octogenarian, within the absence of any hostile safety report, can’t be disadvantaged of her basic proper assured to her below Article 21 of the Structure to journey overseas as an Indian citizen, it added.
Permitting the petition, the court docket put aside the orders impugned and requested the passport officer to think about all the matter afresh and cross orders inside a interval of six weeks from the date the copy of the order is served upon him.
Featured Video Of The Day
Haryana Minister Quits Over Intercourse Harassment Case, Denies Cost