Delh

HC orders probe against officers who issued passport to Ansal

more-in

Orders enquiry by MEA; probe to be completed in 4 weeks

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ordered an enquiry by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) against passport officers who repeatedly issued passports to Sushil Ansal despite his conviction in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire tragedy, which left 59 people dead.

The court noted that Ansal was issued a passport even after his conviction by a trial court in the case in 2007.

Justice Najmi Waziri wondered what was so special about this case that the officers issued a passport to Ansal when the entire world knew about the Uphaar tragedy and the real estate baron’s involvement in the case. “The court wants to know how passports were issued in 2000, 2014 and 2013 when the world knew in some way or the other about the Uphaar tragedy and that respondent 4 [Ansal] was involved in it,” the judge asked.

The court was informed by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Association of Victims of the Uphaar Tragedy chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorthy, that Ansal deliberately made false declarations and suppressed material facts about his conviction while applying for additional passport booklets.

The plea also alleged that Ansal held two passports, which showed they were issued and renewed without following proper procedure, and that he did not even take a no-objection certificate from the courts in the past 21 years, during which he travelled abroad extensively.

The court said the matter be enquired by an officer of not less than the rank of a Joint Officer in the MEA and initial report be submitted in court before the next date, November 15. The enquiry is to be completed in four weeks.

The court also noted that earlier this year, Ansal made an application before the passport authorities declaring his conviction in one case and pendency of two other criminal cases against him.

He claimed that erroneously this information could not be given earlier and apologised, after which he was penalised with a fine amount by the authorities, it noted. At this, the court asked how could have it been allowed.