1 2025:CGHC:57695-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 603 of 2025 Shabbir Hussain @ Shabbir Mohammad S/o Late Imdad Hussain, Aged About 53 Years R/o Vill- Chandrapur, P.S. And Tah. Chandrapur, Dist. Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Superintendent of Police, Sakti, Dist. Sakti (C.G.) 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Chandrapur, Dist. Sakti (C.G.) 4. Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Delhi 5. Chief Passport Officer, PSP Division, Room No. 21, Patiala House, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. 110001 ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.27 17:19:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for UOI. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 Call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner for kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondent police authority to remove the name of the petitioner from the Gunda-List of police station Chandrapur, District Sakti (C.G.) and also to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of persons who are under surveillance with immediate effect. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may, deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to all legal and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a resident 3 of Village Chandrapur, District Sakti (C.G.), and earns his livelihood through agricultural work and printing activities in his hometown. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel that multiple offences were registered against the petitioner between the years 1994 and 2004 at Police Station Chandrapur. According to the report of respondent No. 3, the last case registered against him is Crime No. 137/2014. Thus, for more than a decade, the petitioner has maintained a clean record. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 22.08.2024 seeking deletion of his name from the Gunda List maintained at Police Station Chandrapur and requesting stoppage of surveillance. Along with the representation, he filed an affidavit stating that all criminal cases registered against him have been disposed of and no matter is presently pending. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner intends to perform the ‘Haj Yatra’ and accordingly applied for a passport on 08.10.2024, bearing File/Application No. RP7060218613624. For the purpose of police verification, respondents No. 4 and 5 sought a report from respondent No. 2, who in turn called for information from respondent No. 3. The police report mentions eleven past criminal cases, all of which are 10–30 years old and already disposed of. Respondent No. 3 has also confirmed that no new case has been registered against the petitioner in the last decade. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite this, respondents No. 4 and 5 have withheld the passport, reflecting the 4 status: “Police verification report is not clear; application under review at Regional Passport Office.” He contends that this delay is solely due to the unlawful and arbitrary action of respondents No. 2 and 3, who failed to remove the petitioner’s name from the Gunda List and continue to keep him under surveillance in disregard of Regulations 651 and 652 of the MP/CG Police Regulations. Though informed of the disposal of all cases, respondents No. 2 and 3 have not taken corrective steps. 7. It is submitted that although the passport application was made on 08.10.2024, it has remained pending for over a year without justification, causing the petitioner mental and financial hardship and preventing him from travelling for a religious obligation. The petitioner’s representation has been kept pending without reason. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in WPCR No. 218 of 2019 and WPCR No. 478 of 2024, wherein similar entries in the Gunda List and surveillance orders were quashed. It is, therefore, submitted that the inaction of respondents No. 2 and 3 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the police authorities issued the verification report based on the records available at the time. It is stated that the petitioner’s representation is under consideration and shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. The State further submits that the authorities shall comply with any direction issued by this Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material placed on record. 5 10. This Court finds that the representation dated 22.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner seeking deletion of his name from the Gunda List and stoppage of surveillance has remained pending without decision. Since the pendency of the representation has a direct bearing on the petitioner’s passport application and consequential rights, this Court is of the opinion that the competent authority must decide the same expeditiously. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed off with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22.08.2024 strictly in accordance with law and applicable regulations, and to complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the correctness of the police records or the petitioner’s entitlement to any specific relief, and all issues are left open to be decided by the competent authority. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan