Kerala High Court
Umesh vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 KERALA 181, AIRONLINE 2019 KER 243
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.20181 of 2019
PETITIONER:
UMESH
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. SADANANDAN, SAJEEV MANDIRM, KARAVARAM,
KALLAMBALAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 605.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 110 001
2 PASSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6985007.
BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.20181 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court for the second time seeking relief that the period of his existing passport be extended by the concerned Passport Authority-the 2 nd respondent Passport Officer.
2. According to the petitioner, he had earlier approached this Court and had obtained Ext.P4 judgment, wherein the Passport Officer was directed to consider his claim, but that Ext.P7 order has now been issued by the said Authority rejecting it merely saying that he is an accused in crime No.1151/2016 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Attingal, as is clear from Ext.P2 First Information Report. The petitioner asserts that going by Section 8 of the Passport Act, 1967 ('the Act' for short), extension of the period of passport by the Passport Authority does not require a Court order, and that, as is clear from Ext.P4 judgment, the passport was issued to him for a period of one year under the orders of this Court and consequently, that the Passport Authority must construe these directions to mean that an extension can also be granted. He contends that in any event of the matter, the pendancy of a case WP(C).No.20181 of 2019 3 is not a legal bar for the Passport Authority in issuing a full validity passport, when it is renewed, as per Section 8 of the Act.
3. The Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that a statement has been filed on record wherein the following have been averred.
2. It is humbly submitted that this office has issued passport No.S- 1909077 dated 06.07.2019 to the petitioner in continuation of his previous passport No.K-9773513 dated 09.04.2013 issued at Trivandrum valid for one year as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide W.P.(C) No.13649 of 2018 dated 20.06.2018, since he is an accused in crime No.1151 of 2016 of Kallambalam Police Station. As per the statement filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the criminal case is still pending before the lower court. For further extension of validity of passport another order from the Hon'ble Court is required.
3. It is humbly submitted that Section 6(2)(f) of Passports Act 1967 read as 'Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document that if any proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India'. The passport authority is required to exempt a passport applicant from the operation of the provisions of section 6(2) (f) of Passports Act, if he has produced a certified copy of a court order permitting him to depart from India. In such cases, a Short Validity Passport valid only for one year can be issued, unless the court order specifically mentions a short/full validity passport.
4. It is humbly submitted that in view of the above the petitioner is not legally entitled to any reliefs as sought for in the Writ Petition. WP(C).No.20181 of 2019 4 The above Writ Petition is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. He says that, as is clear from Ext.P4 judgment, the earlier passport was issued to the petitioner only because this Court directed the Passport Authority to do so for a one year period. He says that now that the said period is over, the petitioner must obtain an order either from this Court or from the Court below allowing him to travel abroad so as to enable the Passport Authority to renew his passport. The Assistant Solicitor General also submits that as per the notification of the Government of India, External Affairs No.G.S.R.570 (E) dated August 1993 a passport can be renewed in such circumstances only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying the further period of validity or specifying the period for travel abroad.
5. When I hear the Assistant Solicitor General of India as afore, it is clear that the contention impelled is that the Passport Authority has the authority under Section 8 of the Act to reject renewal/extension of passport for reasons to be recorded in writing and that it is invoking such power that Ext.P7 order has been issued. Therefore, the vital question is whether the reasons stated in Ext.P7 are tenable in law. That said, however, since the WP(C).No.20181 of 2019 5 petitioner concedes that he is an accused in a crime, I cannot find the stand of the Passport Officer in Ext.P7 to be, in any manner, contrary to law, because all that he has said therein is that the petitioner should obtain orders from the competent Court permitting him to travel abroad. Ineluctably, when the petitioner is an accused, such orders will have to be obtained from the Court, before which the crime is pending and not from this Court.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court before which the crime against him is now pending and file an apposite application seeking permission to travel abroad and if such an application is filed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said Court will consider the same and issue orders as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one week from the date on which such application is made. While doing so, the Court below will consider the case of the petitioner empathetically and if there are no other compelling reasons against granting the relief sought for, such permission be granted, particularly taking note of the WP(C).No.20181 of 2019 6 fact that, through Ext.P4 judgment, this Court had earlier granted permission for issuance of the passport for one year.
Needless to say, if the petitioner is granted permission to travel abroad by the criminal Court, then he will be at liberty to produce the said order before the 2nd respondent Passport Officer, who will, thereupon, renew the passport for such appropriate period without any further delay thereafter, adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.M.Abeul Latheef, that his client is required to travel abroad to save his employment within a period of one month.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
nak JUDGE
WP(C).No.20181 of 2019
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PETITIONER'S PASSPORT NO.S 1909077.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1151 OF 2016
DATED 12.08.2016 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE
STATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
21.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.06.2018 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE
COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.13649 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
06.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT
IN W.P.(C) NO.18197 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.07.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE
COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.18197 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1900070-CPC-
TVM TV2061297518118 DATED 17.07.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE