Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mirza Habib Ul Hassan Beigh vs Union Of India And Another on 3 April, 2018
Author: M. K. Hanjura
Bench: M. K. Hanjura
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
...
OWP no.1509/2016 MP no.01/2016 Date of order: 03.04.2018 Mirza Habib ul Hassan Beigh v.
Union of India and another Coram:
Hon'ble Mr Justice M. K. Hanjura, Judge Appearing Counsel:
For Petitioner(s): Mr R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with Ms Amani, Advocate For Respondent(s): Mr Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No
1. Petitioner claims that he possesses the Passport with the date of expiry as 29.06.2016. He sought issuance of the full-term Passport in place of one year. However, the respondents have not come to terms to issue the full term Passport as by the communication bearing no.POSK/P-III/24-16/4966 dated 17th June 2016, they declined to accede to his request. This, according to the petitioner, has forced him to knock at the portals of this Court with the writ petition on hand.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that during the course of the trial, faced by him, in the case FIR no.14/1991, in the court of the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar, validity of the passport/ travel document expired on or around in the month of December, 2004. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for renewal of the passport/travel document. The petitioner also states that the prosecution, being faced by him in case FIR no. 14/1991 is for the alleged acts done in discharge of the official duties, therefore, by reason and by virtue of the Standing Orders issued and notified vide OWP no.1509/2016 Page 1 of 18 GSR no.570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, the applicability of Clause (f) of Subsection 2 of Section 6 of the Passports Act, has been excluded qua the government servants against whom the criminal charges are pending in any Court in India, for acts done or omitted to be done by them in the discharge of their official duties. It is asserted that consistent with the policy decision of the respondent no.1 manifested in GSR no.570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, the requisite No objection was obtained from the court of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar, and submitted along with the other requisite documents to the respondent no.2 for consideration for issuance of the passport/travel document applied for on expiry of the travel document held by the petitioner. However, the respondent no.2 issued the passport/travel document in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year only with effect from 10.01.2005 to 09.01.2006.
On the representation in the matter drawing the focused attention of the respondent no.2 to the statutory legal provisions, namely, Section 7 of the Passports Act, 1967, read with Rule 12 of the Rules of 1980 and Section 8 of the Act of 1967, the respondent no.2, dwelling on Section 8 of the Act, extended the validity period of the travel document/passport for the duration for the period commencing from 09.01.2006 to 09.01.2015. Since the trial, being faced by the petitioner was in progress and the passport issued was due to expire on 09.01.2015, he, in order to facilitate the renewal of the passport, approached the court of the learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar, for issuance of No Objection Certificate. On consideration of the application, the petitioner was permitted to get his passport renewed by the court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar, vide order dated 23.12.2014, and as a consequence of which, the respondent no.2 issued the passport, but, for a period of OWP no.1509/2016 Page 2 of 18 one year only with expiry date as 29.06.2016. Noticing that the passport has been issued for a shorter period of one year, the petitioner again represented before the respondent no.2 for issuance/renewal of the passport/travel document according to the legal provisions regulating and governing the field. Conveying declination of the petitioner's request by letter no.POSK/P-III/24- 16/4966 dated 17.06.2016, inked by the respondent no.2, not vouchsafing the extension to the passport adjured for by the petitioner and concomitantly informing him to apply online afresh for issuance thereof, has necessitated him to come up with the instant motion before this Court. The petitioner, on the edifice of the case set up, beseeches declaration of the communication bearing no.POSK/ P-III/24-16/4966 dated 17th June 2016, issued by the respondent no.2, as arbitrary and non-est in law. He also implores a direction to the respondent no.2 to make and/or cause to make in faithful compliance with the mandate of Section 8 of the Passports Act, the necessary endorsement on the Passport/ Travel document already issued in favour of the petitioner extending the period of the validity of the passport bearing no.M9574137 for such further period as warranted rather mandated under Section 8 of the Act in keeping/according with the period prescribed under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. The petitioner also exhorts a direction to the respondent no.2 to deliver and/or cause to deliver, as done in the past on the rectification of the similar wrong/error, the petitioner travel document/passport with additional endorsement made/recorded thereon extending in due discharge of the statutory obligation under Section 8 of the Act, the validity of the travel document/passport for a further period which together with the shorter period for which the passport was issued in the year OWP no.1509/2016 Page 3 of 18 2015, in tune/according with the period prescribed under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 12 of the Rules.
3. Respondents, in their reply, have insisted that the petitioner has applied for issuance of the passport, however, he has not followed the procedure required for issuance of the passport. He had to attend the Passport Seva Kendra on 15.06.2016 for recording his biometrics, but, as per the system the petitioner had not recorded his biometrics as a result of which the petitioner's date of appointment was rescheduled on 20.06.2016. However, as per the system, the petitioner did not attend the Passport Seva Kendra on this date also. This, according to the respondents, shows that the petitioner was not interested in following the laid down procedure/norms. It is maintained by the respondents that a citizen cannot ipso facto claim issuance of the passport as a matter of right and that issuance of the passport is subject to fulfilling all the formalities as envisaged under the Passports Act and rules framed thereunder. In the first instance, the petitioner has to file his application online for issuance of the passport and subsequently he has to comply with all the formalities including to appear in the Passport Seva Kendra on the appointed date for biometrics. Thereafter the Passport Authority has to seek the verification of his antecedents from the State CID as per the rules in vogue. The Passport Officer in terms of Section 5 of the Passports Act has the powers to enquire into the matter, viz. the character antecedents of the applicant on receipt of an application under Section 5(2) of the Act. On the basis of the application, submitted by the applicant for issuance of the passport, the passport can be denied if the applicant's case falls under any of the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. It is claimed by the respondents that the petitioner cannot claim issuance of the passport as a matter OWP no.1509/2016 Page 4 of 18 of right because the right is regulated by the procedure to be adopted by the Passport Officer. It is maintained that the petitioner is relying on the interim order dated 23.12.2014, passed in a case titled State v. H. H. Beigh FIR no.22/1997, by which the court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar, allowed the petitioner to renew his passport. According to respondents, the court nowhere says that the petitioner has not to follow the procedure because the process for renewal of passport is again to be undertaken in accordance with the law and after following the due procedure as established by the law. The respondents insist that as per the Police Verification Report (PVR), the petitioner is involved in three criminal cases, viz. FIR nos. 13/1991, 14/1991 and 22/1997, which are subjudice in the court of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar. One-year passport was issued in light of the Notification no.GSR 580(E) dated 28/08.1993 as the case was found to be falling under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. The respondents also maintain that as per the system in vogue, the passports are not renewed; instead for any passport services, the applicant is supposed to apply afresh under re- issue category in such cases, and are accordingly processed as per the norms, besides seeking the updated PVR is mandatory; and as per the system in vogue, no endorsements are made in the existing passports instead a new booklet gets issued after fulfilment of the requisite formalities. For subsequent services, the petitioner was advised to apply as per the system in vogue so that the case could be processed as per norms.
4. Heard and considered.
5. Passport means "a formal document certifying a person's identity and citizenship so that he person may travel to and from a foreign OWP no.1509/2016 Page 5 of 18 country", as is discernible from Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, by Bryan A. Garner, p. 1146.
6. We have our Constitution, unmatched in the world, and the Passports Act, 1967, that regulates and governs the subject-matter of the writ petition on hand which has popped up from the above discourse. The Passports Act, 1967, is an act of the Parliament of India "for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto". The Act applies to the whole of India extending to the citizens of India living outside the country. The Act replaced the Indian Passport Ordinance 1967 and was enacted by Act 15 of 1967 with retrospective effect from 5th May 1967. The Act describes the procedures in getting an Indian Passport. In conformity with Article 9 of the Indian Constitution, the Act does not allow dual citizenship. Under Section 12 of the Act, a person must surrender his passport if he has acquired the citizenship of a foreign country.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the year 1967, the Supreme Court, in the celebrated case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam AIR 1967 SC 1836, ruled that the right to travel abroad and return to one's country is a fundamental right implicit in the concept of the personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court pointed out that a person may like to go abroad to see the world, to study abroad, to undergo the medical treatment that is not available in our country, to collaborate in the scientific research, to develop his mental horizon in different fields. The Supreme Court recognised that realistically, without an Indian passport, no person residing in India can travel outside India. At that time there was no law regarding grant, refusal or revocation OWP no.1509/2016 Page 6 of 18 of a passport. The matter was exclusively in the realm of the executive discretion. The Supreme Court rejected the Government's contention that the discretionary power of the State is a political or a diplomatic one. The Supreme Court held that the refusal of a passport, which prejudicially affects a person in the absence of any statutory enactment, would be contrary to the Rule of Law and Article 14 of the Constitution and per se unconstitutional. Thereafter the Passports Act, 1967, was enacted. It sets out specific grounds for refusal, revocation and impounding of a passport. A person's passport cannot be detained or impounded without a valid statutory order under the Passports Act, 1967, or any other applicable law. The practice of seizing the passports of the persons in the absence of any statutory order, detaining them at the airport and, thus, preventing them from leaving the country is patently unconstitutional. In the UK, refusal by the Secretary of State of a passport was defended by the government as exercise of the prerogative power and therefore not subject to the judicial review. This contention was rejected by the Court of the Appeal in England in October 1988. Lord Justice Taylor in his concurring judgment in Regina v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ex Parte Everett ([1989] 1 QB 811: [1988] EWCA Civ 7:
[1989] QB 811: [1989] 2 WLR), held that the court has the power to review the withdrawal or the refusal to grant or renew a passport and "the powers of the court cannot be ousted merely by invoking the word 'prerogative'...Grant or refusal of a passport is a matter of administrative decision, affecting the rights of individuals and their freedom of travel. It raises issues which are just as justiciable as, for example, the issues arising in immigration cases...The ready issue of a passport is a normal expectation of every citizen, unless there is OWP no.1509/2016 Page 7 of 18 good reason for making him an exception". This decision rendered prior to the enactment of the UK Human Rights Act 2002 was a remarkable advance in English administrative law.
8. Now let us have a fleeting look of the Passports Act, 1967. Section 3 of the Passports Act envisions that no person shall depart from, or attempt to depart from, India unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document. Section 4 of the Act of 1967 relates to classes of passports and travel documents. It provides that ordinary passport, official passport and diplomatic can be issued under the Act. The travel documents, like emergency certificate authorizing a person to enter India; certificate of identity for the purpose of establishing the identity of a person; and such other certificate or document as may be prescribed, can be issued under the Act of 1967. An application, as envisioned in Section 5 of the Act of 1967, for the issue of a passport under the Act for visiting such foreign country or countries (not being a named foreign country) as may be specified in the application may be made to the passport authority and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed to meet the expenses incurred on special security paper, printing, lamination and other connected miscellaneous services in issuing passports and other travel documents. On receipt of an application, the passport authority, in terms of subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 1967, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by order in writing,- (a) issue the passport or travel documents with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application; or issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel OWP no.1509/2016 Page 8 of 18 document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement. Where the passport authority makes an order under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) on the application of any person, it shall, as stipulated by subsection (3) of the Section 5 of the Act, record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order and furnish to that person on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such copy. Section 6 says about the refusal of the passports, travel documents, etcetera. It envisages that subject to the other provisions of the Act of 1967, 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 of the Act on the grounds that: the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; 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; and that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act envisions that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of OWP no.1509/2016 Page 9 of 18 Section 5 of the Act on the grounds: (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 the 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.
9. What will be the duration of travel document or a passport is specified in Section 7 of the Act of 1967. It says that a passport or travel document shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period as may be prescribed and different periods may be prescribed for different classes of passports or travel documents or for different categories of passports or travel documents under each such class; provided that a passport or travel document may be OWP no.1509/2016 Page 10 of 18 issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period (a) if the person by whom it is required so desires; or (b) if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, considers in any case that the passport or travel document should be issued for a shorter period. Section 8 of the Act provides that where a passport is issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period under section 7 of the Act, such shorter period shall, unless the passport authority for the reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise determines, be extendable for a further period, which together with the shorter period shall not exceed the prescribed period, and provision of the Act of 1967 shall apply to such extension as they apply to the issue thereof.
10.Section 22 of the Act of 1967 furnishes the powers qua the exemption of any person or class of the persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act of 1967 or the rules made thereunder. It says that where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the official gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act of 1967 or the rules made thereunder and as often, as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions. It is in this context that the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs vide G.S.R. 34 (E) dated 12 th January 2000, exempted all government servants against whom the criminal charges are pending in any court in India for the acts done or omitted to be done by them in the discharge of their official duties from the operation of clause (f) of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the OWP no.1509/2016 Page 11 of 18 Act. A certificate from their department conveying their "No Objections" to the issue of passport to such officials would be required as in all the cases of the government servants.
11.The Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney's case (supra) has held:
"31: For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept the view of Kerala, Bombay and Mysore High Courts in preference to that expressed by the Delhi High Court. It follows that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law. It is not disputed that no law was made by the State regulating or depriving persons of such a right."
12.A similar view has been reiterated by the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 wherein at page 280, it was held as under:
"....Now, it has been held by this Court in Satwant Singh's case (supra) that 'personal liberty' within the meaning of Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to go abroad and consequently no person can be deprived of this right except according to procedure prescribed by law. Prior to the enactment of the Passports Act, 1967, there was no law regulating the right of a person to go abroad and that was the reason why the order of the Passport Officer refusing to issue passport to the petitioner in Satwant Singh's case (supra) was struck down as invalid. It will be seen at once from the language of Article 21 that the protection it secures is a limited one.
It safeguards the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by law; and law here means 'enacted law' or 'State law' (Vide A.K. Gopalan's case). Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure....."
13.A Bench of this Court in Abdul Majid Sheikh v. U.O.I. & ors 2011 (4) JKJ 170 [HC], has dealt with and set at rest the akin issue as has emerged in the case in hand. In the said case, the son of the writ petitioner had joined the militancy and on the basis thereof the passport was not issued in his favour. This Court said that any act on OWP no.1509/2016 Page 12 of 18 the part of the petitioner's son, cannot be used against the writ petitioner to affect his right to seek passport when nothing has been attributed by the State respondents about the writ petitioner's likely to engage himself in any such activity which may attract any one or the other conditions indicated in Section 6 of the Act, disentitling him to issuance of passport. This Court has held that refusal of passport on the report of the State Government cannot sustain and is unjustified.
14.A Bench of this Court again in Mohd. Bin Qasim v. Union of India & ors 2013 (3) JKJ 414 [HC] has held that once there is no adverse report against the passport holder, the extension of the passport cannot be refused on any pretext.
15.In the present case the respondents have taken a premise that the petitioner is involved three criminal cases, viz FIR no.13/1991, 14/1991 and 22/1997. The petitioner's case, as maintained by respondents, albeit, recommended by the J&K CID for issuance/ extension of the passport, but, subject to securing the NOC from the concerned competent court of law. An order dated 23.12.2014 has been passed by the court of the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar, permitting the petitioner to get his passport renewed. However, the respondents have, while relying on the Notification no.GSR 570(E) dated 28.08.1993 and given the petitioner's case falling under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, issued the passport for one year only in favour of the petitioner. It may not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner no.1 is a retired government employee as of now. Earlier, as what is discernible from the pleadings of the parties and the record accompanying the respective pleadings, the passport was issued way OWP no.1509/2016 Page 13 of 18 back in the year 2005, which was thereafter extended from time to time finally expiring on 29.06.2016.
16.Having regard to the rival submissions, it is germane to begin with a peep of Circular dated 21st August 2014 (Annexure A to writ petition). It reads:
"Subject: Passport applications of citizens against whom proceedings before a criminal court are pending The issuance of passports to citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India is administered by the provisions notified in the Gazette of India vide GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993. The Gazette notification is available on the passport portal at the link:
http://www. Passport india.gov.in/ App Online Project/ pdf/ GSR 570 dtd 25.08.93.pdf
2. As prescribed, an applicant is required to submit permission of the concerned court as well as an undertaking in writing on plain paper, as provided at para 1(d) of GSR 570 (E). A need has been felt to prescribe a standard format of undertaking for easy reference for citizens and Passport Issuing Authorities. The proforma of undertaking in this regard is enclosed. This format is also being uploaded on the passport portal for applicants.
3. Whenever any applicant against whom proceedings before a criminal. Court are pending approaches any Passport Issuing Authority for the passport services, a copy of Gazette notification and proforma undertaking can be given to him/her with a covering letter directing him/her to fulfil the requirements prescribed in the Gazette notification. On submission of the same, his/her passport application may be processed and passport may be issued as per the provisions of the GSR 570 (E) and the contents of the court order.
Needless to mention that the other documents / requirements as applicable to other passport applicants are also required to be sought."
17.What emerges from the above Circular dated 21st August 2014, is that a passport can be issued in favour of a citizen of India, against whom criminal proceedings are pending, however, subject to the conditions of the Notification bearing GSR 570(E) dated OWP no.1509/2016 Page 14 of 18 25.08.1993. This takes us to have glance of what is percolating from and what is fallout of the Notification no.GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, on the present case. For that matter, it would be profitable to extract Notification no.GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, infra:
"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 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued--
(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 court 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;OWP no.1509/2016 Page 15 of 18
(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."
18.It appears that the afore quoted Guideline/Notification dated 25.08.1993, has been issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Maneka Gandhi (surpa), considering the right of the citizen under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
19.While exemption has been vouchsafed in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated 25.08.1993, to the citizens of India, against whom the proceedings in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed by them, are pending, to depart from India, notwithstanding the bar couched by the clause (f) of Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1967, that declines issuance of a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country in favour of a person, against whom criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court in India, such citizens, however, are, in the first place, obliged to earn an order from the court, where such criminal proceeding are pending against them, permitting them to depart from India. The Notification bearing GSR 580(E) dated 25.08.1993 also provides that the passport/travel document, upon production of the order from the court concerned, can be issued for the period specified in the order, so passed by the court concerned. However, in the event the period is not so specified by the court concerned for issuance of the passport or for travelling abroad, the passport, in such circumstances, as stipulated in condition (a)(ii) of the Notification no.GSR 580(E) dated 25.08.1993, shall be issued for a period of one OWP no.1509/2016 Page 16 of 18 year only. While stipulating so, the aforesaid Notification also envisions that the passport can be further renewed for one year at a time if the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court concerned and if, in the interregnum, the order of the court concerned has not been cancelled or modified. The citizen, in whose favour the passport is issued under and in terms of the aforesaid Notification, shall furnish an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority asseverating therein 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. In the present case, the petitioner has very well approached the court concerned, viz. the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar. Permission, as sought for, has been given in favour of the petitioner for getting the passport renewed.
20.What is deducible from the above discourse is that the respondents have rightly, and in compliance with Notification no.GSR 580(E) dated 25.08.1993, issued the passport in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that the respondents have violated any of his guaranteed Constitutional rights.
21.The writ petition, viewed in the background of what has been said and done above, is disposed of in the following terms:
"a) The petitioner shall make a fresh application to the respondent authority, which shall be considered by the respondent authority for issuance of the passport for the duration/period as specified in the Notification no.GSR 580(E) dated 25.08.1993 on the fulfillment of the required OWP no.1509/2016 Page 17 of 18 conditions. The respondents shall consider the request/ application of the petitioner in light of Notification no.GSR 580(E) dated 25.08.1993, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the application along with certified copy of this order.
b) It goes without saying that after the passport is issued the petitioner shall file an undertaking as envisaged in terms of condition (d) of the Notification no.GSR 580(E) dated 25.08.1993."
22.Disposed of.
( M. K. Hanjura ) Judge Srinagar 03.04.2018 Ajaz Ahmad OWP no.1509/2016 Page 18 of 18