Passport Case: Applicant Cannot Suffer Indefinitely For Inaction On The Part Of Police Authorities: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court in a passport case has observed that an applicant cannot suffer indefinitely for inaction on the part of police authorities. The Court was dealing with a matter wherein a woman was requested to visit the SCO Office as the documents produced by her were insufficient for citizenship.
A Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya said, “… it is for the respondent no. 2-authority to ascertain with immediacy as to the outcome of such e-mail, sent to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, that is, the respondent no.3. The petitioner cannot suffer indefinitely for such inaction on the part of the Police authorities.”
The Bench also said that the lookout of the Police is only to ascertain whether the documents produced by the applicant are genuine.
Advocate Gunjan Sinha appeared for the petitioner while Advocates Asok Kumar Chakraborti, Susmita Saha Dutta, and Tuli Sinha appeared for the respondents.
In this case, as per the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had already applied for a passport and submitted the necessary documents in that regard, including a birth certificate issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that despite having furnished all documents, the police authorities did not complete their verification, leading to the passport not yet being issued.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted a police report authored by the Officer-in-Charge of the Patuli Police Station, which stated that, on June 13, 2023, it received information from the “SCO Office”, Kolkata that the documents produced by the petitioner were insufficient of Citizenship and hence, she was requested to visit the SCO Office with all documents.
The Court in the above regard noted, “However, it transpires from the annexure at page-17, regarding Passport Verification Status, that the list of documents to be submitted at the Police Station for police verification only requires two of the documents, as stated therein, to be produced as citizenship proof.”
The Court added that since the petitioner has already submitted more than two such documents, no further documents are required to be furnished by her with the police authorities. It said that the vague reference to the “SCO Office” has not even been explained by the counsel for the State.
“It also appears from the report of the Police, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, that an e-mail has already been sent by the concerned police station to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for verification of birth certificate of the petitioner”, observed the Court.
The Court, therefore, directed the authorities to immediately ascertain the outcome of the e-mail allegedly sent regarding the verification of the birth certificate produced by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title- Shivani Mishra v. The Union of India and others
