Karnataka High Court
Sanjay G. Kheny vs The Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 2022
Author: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201057/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.201057/2022 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
Sanjay G.Kheny S/o Gurubasappa Kheny,
Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o No.201, village Sitalgera,
Tq: Humnanabad, Dist. Bidar-585330.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Union of India
Ministry of External Affairs,
South Block,
New Delhi-110001,
Represented by Principal Secretary,
2. The Passport Authority of India,
PSP Division, Ministry of
External Affairs,
Room No.8, Patiala Houser, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
Represented by its Chief Passport Officer.
2 W.P.No.201057/2022
3. The Regional Passport Office,
8th Block, 80 feet Road,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560095, Karnataka,
Represented by its
Regional Passport Officer.
... Respondents
(By Sri Sanjeev Kumar C.Patil, Advocate for R1 to R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in a
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
direction, quashing the communication dated
12.01.2022 in Ref.No.SCN/312027133/22 under
Annexure-E and communication dated 11.03.2022 in
Ref.No.SCN/312297719/2022 under Annexure-G issued
by the 3rd respondent. Issue a writ in a nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction,
directing the respondent authorities to consider the
request of the petitioner i.e., reply dated 14.02.2022
under Annexure-F for renewal of passport without
insisting for permission from the jurisdictional
magistrate and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
3 W.P.No.201057/2022
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
"(a) To issue a writ in a nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, quashing the communication dated 12.01.2022 in Ref.No.SCN/312027133/22 under Annexure-E and communication dated 11.03.2022 in Ref.No.SCN/312297719/2022 under Annexure-G issued by the 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice.
(b) Issue a writ in a nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner i.e., reply dated 14.02.2022 under Annexure-F for renewal of passport without insisting for permission from the jurisdictional magistrate in the interest of justice."4 W.P.No.201057/2022
2. It is the case of the petitioner that a passport was issued in his favour by the Regional Passport Authority on 23.01.2012, which was due to expire on 22.01.2022 and therefore, the petitioner had made an application online through Seva Kendra for the purpose of renewing the passport. The said application was made on 25.10.2021. In response to the said application, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the passport authority on 29.10.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the passport authority and had completed the formalities and had produced all relevant records.
3. Thereafterwards, a notice was issued on 06.12.2021 calling upon the petitioner to explain with regard to the criminal case pending in Crime No.105/2022 against him and the petitioner had appeared before the passport authority and had submitted the papers relating to the bail granted to him 5 W.P.No.201057/2022 in the said criminal case. Thereafterwards, a latter dated 12.01.2022 was issued by the office of third respondent calling upon the petitioner to obtain necessary permission from the concerned Court before which the said criminal case is pending against him for renewal of the passport.
4. In response to the same, the petitioner had given his reply contending that he is not required to obtain any permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mr.Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata vs. The Union of India passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9141/2020 disposed of on 01.10.2020. In spite of such a reply, the office of the third respondent had once again called upon the petitioner to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court 6 W.P.No.201057/2022 challenging the communications issued by the office of the third respondent calling upon him to obtain necessary permission form the jurisdictional Magistrate for the purpose of renewal of the passport.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that undisputedly the passport was issued to the petitioner on 23.01.2012 and an application for renewal had been made in time before the competent authority and he submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mr.Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata (Supra), the petitioner is not required to obtain any permission form the jurisdictional Magistrate and the pendency of a criminal case shall not be a reason for the respondents to deny renewal of the passport of the petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of this Court 7 W.P.No.201057/2022 passed in W.P.No.57756/2015 disposed of 14.06.2016 (Mr.Sumedha R. Bnosekar vs. Union of India) and submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He submits that if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he is required to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued with a passport on 23.01.2012 which has expired on 22.01.2022 and even prior to expiry of the same, he had made an application for renewal on 25.10.2021 and pursuant to the said application, he was asked to appear before the competent authority on 29.10.2021 and accordingly, the 8 W.P.No.201057/2022 petitioner had appeared before the competent authority and produced all the relevant documents in support of his prayer for renewal of the passport. Thereafterwards, the petitioner had received the impugned notices/communications dated 12.01.2022 and 11.03.2022 vide Annexures-E and G calling upon him to obtain necessary permission fro the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending against the petitioner.
9. This Court in the case of Mr.Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata (Supra) has held that merely for the reason that a criminal case is pending against the applicant seeking renewal of the passport, he need not obtain any permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. In the said case by appreciating the notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, it 9 W.P.No.201057/2022 has been held that if only the applicant has requested for issuing the passport so as to enable him to travel abroad, in such cases, the applicant is required to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending.
10. In paragraph Nos.13 and 15 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows:
"13. In the instant case, petitioner is seeking for renewal for his passport, therefore, said request cannot be rejected by taking shelter under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and Notification bearing No.G.S.R 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
15. The Apex Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney supra, has held that under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to 10 W.P.No.201057/2022 procedure established by law. Hence, petitioner's right to travel cannot be curtailed on the pretext that a criminal case is pending against him by refusing to renew his passport."
11. In the case of Mr.Sumedha (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court has rejected the writ petition of the petitioner whose application for renewal was not being considered by the respondents relying upon the very same Government notification dated 25.08.1993 and it has been held in the said order that if there are any criminal case against the applicant, who had sought for issuance of passport, the said applicant is required to make suitable application before the Court in which the criminal case is pending against him and it is only after obtaining necessary permission from the jurisdictional Court, his application can be considered. 11 W.P.No.201057/2022
12. The notification dated 25.08.1993 has been quoted in the order passed in W.P.No.57756/2015. A reading of the same, makes it clear that the said notification is applicable only in cases where the applicant has sought for issuance of a fresh passport and not in cases where the request is for renewal of the passport, which is already issued. This Court has considered the very same notification in the case of Mr.Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata (Supra) and has held that the said notification is not applicable to a case where the applicant is seeking renewal of the passport. This Court has also taken note of the fact that in the prescribed form for the purpose of renewal of the passport, there is no requirement for obtaining permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending. The order passed in the case of Mr.Sumedha (Supra) was relied upon by the respondents even in the said case and this 12 W.P.No.201057/2022 Court has specifically held that the same would not applicable to the facts of that case. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned communications issued by the third respondent cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communications vide Annexures-E and G dated 12.01.2022 and 11.03.2022 respectively issued by the third respondent are quashed. The third respondent or any other competent authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law without insisting him to produce the permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate and if he is found otherwise eligible, the third respondent/competent authority will consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of his passport as 13 W.P.No.201057/2022 expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt CT-SMP