Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Akram vs The State By Udupi Town P. S on 17 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10980
WP No. 6759 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 6759 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED AKRAM,
S/O ABDUL MUNAF,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2-17, D5-A2,
ABIDA MANZIL,
A.M. COTTAGE,
4TH GOPALPURA CROSS,
BEHIND KHUSHI HOTEL,
UDUPI - 576 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. THE STATE BY UDUPI TOWN P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE - 1.
2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PASSPORT OFFICE,
8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 095.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10980
WP No. 6759 of 2025
3. THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
OFFICE OF THE PASSPORT OFFICE,
8TH BLOCK,
80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 095.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-2 TO RENEW THE PASSPORT BEARING NO.
L1360283 DATED 16.05.2013 ISSUED AT BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:
"a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to renew the passport bearing No. L1360283 dt.16.5.2013 issued at Bangalore, and;
b) To pass such other orders or in the interest of justice and equity."-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10980 WP No. 6759 of 2025
2. Heard Shri Muzaffar Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents No.2 and 3.
3. The petitioner seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking re-issuance of his passport on it being expired. The reason for non-issuance is pendency of crime in crime No.185/2022.
4. Shri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India on verification of the records would submit that the crime is still at the stage of investigation.
5. This Court in an identical matter in W.P.No.18066/2023 disposed on 14.02.2024, has held as follows:
"9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondent and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my consideration is, whether the re-issuance or the renewal of the passport can be denied on the score that a FIR is registered against the holder of the passport?-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:10980 WP No. 6759 of 2025
10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. The issue lies in a narrow compass, with regard to the action of the respondent in not reissuing the passport as was sought by the petitioner. As observed, the petitioner is a holder of an Indian passport, which was issued to him on 05.04.2013 and its validity was upto 04.04.2023. The petitioner, six months before its expiry i.e., on 10.11.2022, submitted an application seeking renewal of his passport. It is not considered on the score that there are three cases pending against the petitioner, which are noted hereinabove. The tenability or otherwise of such non- consideration is required to be noticed, for which certain provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act'), are necessary to be considered. Section 6 of the Act deals with refusal of passports / travel documents, it reads as follows:
""6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under -5- NC: 2025:KHC:10980 WP No. 6759 of 2025 clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest."
(Emphasis supplied) -6- NC: 2025:KHC:10980 WP No. 6759 of 2025 It is the afore-quoted provision is what is necessary to be considered for the resolution of the issue in the lis. It mandates that a passport or a travel document can be denied to a holder of the passport, if any proceeding is pending, against him before any criminal court in India. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner are as afore-quoted. Three proceedings against him and, one instituted by him.
11. In furtherance of the afore-quoted statutory provision, the Ministry of External Affairs had issued a notification in Notification No.GSR570(E) on 25.08.1993, as to what must be done in cases where there are pending cases before the criminal court, against the holder of a passport. This is further clarified by another Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the relevant clause of which, reads as follows:
"(vi) In case where the secondary Police verification is also 'Adverse', it may be examined whether the details brought out in the police report match the undertaking submitted by the applicant. It may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same."
(Emphasis supplied) The clarification is rendered by the Ministry of External Affairs that mere filing of FIR and cases under investigation would not come under the purview Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the criminal proceedings would only be considered when pending, and the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence, which would presuppose that the charge sheet has been filed by the Officer in-charge of a police station.
12. In the light of the aforesaid clarification, in cases where the proceedings are pending against the holders of the passports, when they seek renewal or re- issuance, it cannot be denied on the ground that the proceedings are pending against those holders of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:10980 WP No. 6759 of 2025 passports only in cases, where the proceedings are at the stage of crime, and the concerned criminal Court has not taken cognizance of the offence. Any other proceeding pending invoking any other law, will not become an impediment for the Passport Authorities for issuance / re-issuance / renewal of passport. Therefore, it is expected of the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and not deny re- issuance / renewal of passport to those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned Court is not yet take cognizance, and not drive every passport holder to knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance."
6. Sri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India would in all fairness admits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.No.18066/2023 as afore-quoted, on all its fours.
7. In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of this Court supra, which covers the issue in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner -8- NC: 2025:KHC:10980 WP No. 6759 of 2025 seeking renewal / re-issuance of the passport within an outer limit of two weeks from today or if not earlier.
c. It is needless to observe that such consideration shall happen only in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 CT: BHK