Kerala High Court
Sreekanth vs Regional Passport Officer And Others on 13 September, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28237 of 2010(D)
1. SREEKANTH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 28237 OF 2010 (D)
=====================
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that he is a student of B.Tech Course conducted by University of Wolverhampton, UK. According to him, he has to go to UK to complete the studies. It is stated that he is an accused in Crime No.1487/09 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. It is stated that due to the above, the 1st respondent is refusing to issue passport to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue passport to the petitioner imposing any condition as he may deem fit.
2. Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 providing the circumstances in which passport can be refused states that, if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant is pending before a Criminal Court in India, the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue passport. On account of the aforesaid provision and as admittedly, the petitioner is an accused in the crime noted above, the 1st respondent cannot be faulted for refusing to issue passport. WPC No. 28237/10 :2 :
3. However, by virtue of the provisions contained in Notification No.G.S.R.570(E) dated 25/8/93, issued by the Government of India, if the petitioner is able to produce an order from the Court where the Crime is lodged, permitting him to depart from India, he will be exempted from operation of the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(f). Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to apply to the Court where the FIR is lodged seeking the benefit of the notification referred to above which has also been dealt with by this Court in Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to make an application before the Court concerned. It is directed that if the court passes oder as sought for by the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall take necessary action on the application made by the petitioner for passport.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp