- Contact us to place Advertisements here -spot_img
HomeNewsKangana Ranaut should have been observant and filed proper petition: Bombay HC...

Kangana Ranaut should have been observant and filed proper petition: Bombay HC on Ranaut’s plea for renewal of passport after Passport Authority objects based on sedition FIR

- Advertisement -spot_img

During the hearing of a plea filed by actor Kangana Ranaut, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on her lawyer saying, “She should have been more vigilant. If there was urgency, she would have approached you with all the details. Your application is vague.”

Kangana had approached the high court stating that her application to renew her passport was rejected as there was a case of sedition registered against her in Bandra. She and her sister Rangoli had already approached the high court, seeking quashing of that FIR. While the court ordered police to not take any coercive action against them, the FIR against them remains.

Advocate Rizwan Merchant appearing for the original complainant, Munnawarali Sayyed, pointed out that there was no impugned order attached in the petition filed by the actress. He opposed the plea filed by her saying that “Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked”. Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, told the court that the rejection was verbal and there is no order per se. “As the passport was expiring, we filed an application. While the application was filed, we were verbally told that because an FIR is registered so the passport will not be renewed,” Siddiquee said.

The court asked Siddiquee to present the order as what he was saying was only oral. “That is what you are saying. But where is the order?” The Bombay High Court also pointed out that the plea filed by Ranaut had her sister’s name as well. It asked, “The applicant is in the performance industry. What about the other? What is her problem?”

Siddiquee explained to the court that the application regarding the passport was only with regards to Kangana and not her sister Rangoli. However, he promised to make an amendment to the petition. The court further asked “Which is the competent authority that you have a grievance against? When you have not made the passport authority a party in the petition, then how can we issue a notice to them?”

Siddiquee pointed out that the passport authority had only told them verbally to get a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the court. “They say that if you take a NOC from the High Court it can be done,” said Siddiquee. “It is not a case in a police station. You are challenging the passport authority. You need to make them a party,” said the court while adjourning the next date of hearing to June 25.

Kangana’s lawyer requested that the issue needed an urgent hearing. He said that production dates for the film that she was working on have already been declared and that all other actors were already at the location. The court, though, said that the date was the earliest that they could give.

- Advertisement -spot_img
- Advertisement -spot_img
Stay Connected
Must Read
- Advertisement -spot_img
Related News
- Advertisement -spot_img


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


The North-Eastern Chronicle

× How can we help you?