Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Shrivastava vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 14 th OF JULY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 15442 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI SHARAD
SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 1002, A BLOCK BCM PLANET, NIPANIA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VISHAL BAHETI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PATIALA HOUSE ANNEX,
TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, UNION OF
I N D I A MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
GANGOTRI COMPLEX, T.T. NAGAR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY
OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REGIONAL PASSPORT
OFFICE, I.S.B.T. MAIN BUILDING, MEZZANINE
FLOOR, HABIBGANJ, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ISHITA AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 14-07-2023 17:45:29 2 No.3 whereby the respondent No.3 has refused to renew the passport of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner shall either produce the acquittal orders or the Court permission order (NOC) from the concerned Courts in all seventeen Courts cases.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to depart from India and is only seeking renewal of his passport. It is submitted that as per the list filed by the petitioner, against him 13 cases have been registered, out of which one case at Crime No.54/2016 has been quashed by this Court and 12 cases are still pending. It is further submitted that in identical case, where against the identically placed person as many as 21 cases were pending, this Court has allowed the renewal of passport interpreting the notification dated 14.04.1976 in W.P. No.6229/2023 vide order dated 09.05.2023. Thus, it is submitted that the aforesaid case would be applicable mutatis mutandis to the case of the petitioner also as the petitioner is only seeking to renew his passport and not to depart from India. It is also submitted that the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6229/2023 has already been complied with and the passport has also been renewed.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner's application has already been rejected on the ground of pendency of the criminal cases.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.6229/2023 dated 09.05.2023 is concerned, the same reads as under:-
"Heard.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"That Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or any other Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 14-07-2023 17:45:29 3 appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 2 to immediately renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of
10 years.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing criminal trial in connection with Crime No.563/2016 (S.T. No.600726/2016) wherein he has already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5492 of 2017 vide order dated 22.06.2017 with a direction to surrender his passport before the trial Court, which order the petitioner has already complied with. However, the petitioner's grievance is that his passport is valid till 01.06.2020 only and thus, he sought release of the passport from the trial, which application was rejected on 08.07.2022 by the trial Court. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in M.Cr.C. No.35804 of 2022 which was allowed by this Court on 30.08.2022 setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and directing to release the passport of the petitioner on an undertaking that he would submit his passport before the trial Court no sooner it is renewed.
4] The grievance of the petitioner is that after the passport was released by the trial Court, the petitioner approached the Passport Authorities by filing an application dated 07.10.2022 for renewal of the passport, however, the petitioner has been informed that there is adverse police verification to his credentials. In the aforesaid communication dated 23.11.2022, it is mentioned that against the petitioner 22 criminal cases have been registered under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC, but he has taken the permission only in one such offence under Crime No.563 of 2016.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Hardik Shah Vs. Union of India and another passed in W.P. No.5692 of 2020 dated 07.12.2021 wherein this Court has held that the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 is not an impediment in a case of renewal of a passport for a period of ten years. Thus, Shri Baheti has submitted that since the present case is also purely of renewal of passport, the respondents may be directed to renew the same for a period of ten years without compelling the petitioner to seek no objection in all the other 22 cases registered against him. 6] A reply has also been filed by the respondents wherein a reference is made to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 14-07-2023 17:45:29 4 which authorizes the concerned Officer to refuse the passport if a n y criminal case is pending against any person in Criminal Court of India and in the present case since 21 other cases have also been registered against him, the passport cannot be renewed. The respondents have also relied upon the Gazette Notification issued by Ministry of External Affairs No.G.S.R. No.298(E) dated 14.04.1976 which prescribes as under:-
" It is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizen of India against whom any proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India and who produce order from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India from the operation of the provision of Clause (f) of sub section (2) of section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967."
7] Thus, it is submitted that in the light of the aforesaid Notification, the petitioner may be directed to obtain the permission from respective concerned Courts where criminal cases registered against the petitioner are pending and thus, it is submitted that the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
8] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9] On due consideration of the Gazett Notification No.G.S.R. No.298(E) dated 14.04.1976, this court is of the considered opinion that it would be applicable in case where a person against whom criminal case is pending intends to depart from India. In the present case it is not the petitioner's intention to depart from India, but he only wants to have his passport renewed. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, he is not required to obtain separate permissions from each of such 22 criminal courts in which cases are pending against him as he is required to take permission only if he intends to depart from India.
10] In view of the same, this court finds no legal impediment in allowing the present petition for renewal of the passport of the petitioner.
11] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and it is directed to the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner for such period according to his entitlement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12] After the passport of the petitioner is renewed, he is also directed to deposit the same in the trial Court as was earlier directed by this court in M.Cr.C. No.35804 of 2022 which was Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 14-07-2023 17:45:29 5 allowed by this Court on 30.08.2022."
In view of the same, this court finds no legal impediment in allowing the present petition for renewal of the passport of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Impugned order dated 31.03.2022 is hereby set aside and it is directed to the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner for such period according to his entitlement within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that merely because the petitioner's passport is renewed, would not entitle him to travel abroad as he can depart from India only after obtaining due permission from the concerned court, where the case is pending.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 14-07-2023 17:45:29