Karnataka High Court
Muktiyar S/O. Noor Ahmed Golsangi Alias ... vs The Regional Passport Officer on 22 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075
WP No. 104635 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 104635 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
MUKTIYAR S/O. NOOR AHMED GOLSANGI @ SAVNOOR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. PLOT NO.43, SY. NO.1001/1,
1ST CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
BENGALURU, 8TH BLOCK,
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560095.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
2. PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA,
HUBLI-E BLOCK, LOWER GROUND FLOOR,
Location: HIGH
IT PARK, OPP. INDIRA GLASS HOUSE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.
DHARWAD
BENCH ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTER REFERENCE
NO.SCN/318354959/24 DATED 27/06/2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE PASSPORT TO
THE PETITIONER AS PER FILE NO.BNB066498461924 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075
WP No. 104635 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior panel counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the issuance of Annexure-C by respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner had applied for issuance of Passport. Respondent No.1 issued Annexure-C dated 27.06.2024 asking for certain clarification on the basis of the adverse police verification report corresponding to the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of Passport.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in C.C. Nos.972/2015, 336/2016 and 307/2018. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, he has been acquitted in C.C. No.972/2015 by a judgment rendered on 11.10.2021 but the other two cases are pending. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as he intended to go to religious pilgrimage -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR called Umrah, he applied for passport. He was not aware as to mentioning the case where he has been acquitted and whether the criminal case are pending. It is further contended by the learned counsel that, even if the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, the Ministry of External Affairs has issued a Notification dated 25.08.1993 to issue passport despite the pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, he did not find the need to mention. Hence, he has filed the present petition to quash the letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by respondent No.1.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contends that, when a person applies for passport to the respondent-authorities, he is bound to disclose the requirements as sought for in the application which also contains registration of any criminal case or pendency against the applicant. The petitioner while filing the application has not mentioned any criminal case either pending or acquitted in the said application. The respondent-authorities after conducting police verification, as regards the petitioner, came to know that there are criminal cases pending against the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioner and in one case he is acquitted. These details were not furnished at the initial stage, therefore, a letter was issued to the petitioner to provide clarification and explanation within 30 days of the issuance of the letter. The petitioner did not reply to the said letter. It also contained a pre-condition that, if no response is sent within the specified period, the petitioner would be denied passport against this application or future application unless cleared in appeal by the PSP Division or Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that there was no impediment for the petitioner to have disclosed the criminal cases either pending or acquitted or convicted in the application. Having not done so and the respondents having unearthed in the police verification report, it is apparently clear that, there is a clear suppression of facts by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents issued a letter and since no explanation is given, it was deemed to have not granted, as no satisfactory response was given within the time stipulated, by the authorities.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. Learned senior panel counsel contends that the petition does not warrant interference, the same requires to be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, apparently, it is seen that the petitioner has suppressed certain facts at the time of filing of the application for issuance of passport. On the police verification conducted by the respondents, it is seen that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and in one case he is acquitted. The impugned order/letter also contemplates that the petitioner would be denied the passport for future application as well, unless, cleared in appeal by the PSP Division or Court. The petitioner has revealed the details of the criminal cases in this petition after the respondents-authorities have given him the letter dated 27.06.2024 pursuant to a police verification report disclosing registration of criminal cases, which was not revealed by the petitioner.
9. Prima facie, this Court does not find any fault with the letter issued by respondent No.1 except for the portion where it is mentioned that, the petitioner would be denied -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR passport on future applications, if any applied. It is relevant to mention, Section 6 of the Passport Act contemplates refusal of passport, travel documents etc.
10. The Ministry of External Affairs has issued a Notification dated 25.08.1993 wherein certain guidelines are prescribed for issuance of passport and permission for a person applying for passport and the travel document to travel outside the country. The said notification dated 25.08.1993 reads as under:
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993 "G.S.R. 570 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued--7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year,
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a)
(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the count is not cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued."
11. In the present case on hand, due to suppression of the criminal cases, respondent No.1 rejected the application by issuance of letter at Annexure-C. But in the same application, it is also stated that the petitioner would be denied passport for -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR future application as well. This portion of the order cannot be sustained for the reason that, the petitioner had failed to make a reply or clarification to the letter issued by respondent- authorities i.e. passport authorities, they could have rejected the application of the petitioner which by the very impugned letter is apparent on the face of the record, as it is a deemed rejection if no reply or explanation is given within 30 days. But the same cannot be implemented for eternity or in future in case the petitioner is either acquitted or no criminal cases are pending against him. Therefore, this order cannot be sustained to this limited extent.
12. Under the circumstances, I pass the following ORDER i. This petition is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned letter dated 27.06.2024 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C is hereby quashed to the limited extent of petitioner being denied passport for any future application. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9075 WP No. 104635 of 2025 HC-KAR iii. The petitioner is at liberty to make fresh application to the passport authority for issuance of passport by revealing all details and not making any suppression of facts. If, any such application is filed, the respondent-authorities shall consider the same in accordance to the Act and the Notification issued and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK