Kerala High Court
E.V.Peter vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.22041 OF 2019(E)
PETITIONER/S:
E.V.PETER
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, EDAYANAL HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-683565.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
SMT.A.A.GEETHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE PASSPORT OFFICR, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, SEA PORT AIR PORT ROAD, KARINGACHIRA, ERNAKULAM-682037.
R2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22041 OF 2019(E) 2 JUDGMEN T The petitioner says that he made an application for a passport through Ext.P1 but that the 2 nd respondent - Passport Officer is refusing to consider or allow the same, merely saying that he is an accused in a Crime, numbered as C.C.No.576/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery. The petitioner says that the entire proceedings in the said Crime has already been stayed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.4142/2015, as is evident from Ext.P5 order and consequently prays that the 2nd respondent be directed to consider Ext.P1 application adverting to Ext.P5 order.
2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, submits that, normally, the application of a person cannot be considered if he is arrayed as an accused in a criminal case, without the said Court granting permission to him to travel abroad. He says that, however, in this case, since the petitioner now asserts that all proceedings in the criminal case against him has been stayed by this Court through Ext.P5 order, the 2nd respondent will consider Ext.P1, taking note of the said order and dispose of the same; however, praying that this Court may not speak affirmatively on the entitlement of the WP(C).No.22041 OF 2019(E) 3 petitioner and leave it to the said Authority to decide appositely as to whether the application can be allowed or otherwise. The learned Assistant Solicitor General says that this can be done within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow the petitioner to produce Ext.P5 and the extended interim order, if any, before the 2nd respondent within a period of four days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Authority will take up Ext.P1 and consider the same, adverting to the said order and then decide whether the petitioner's request for a fresh passport can be acceded to or otherwise. This shall be done by the Passport Authority after hearing the petitioner also within a period of 15 days from the date on which Ext.P5 and its extension order, issued by this Court, are produced in terms of this judgment.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No.22041 OF 2019(E)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGING THE SUBMISSION OF EXT.P1 APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER DATED 3.8.2019. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.61/A/13 SUBMITTED BY THE PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY DATED 27.1.2014. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A.NO.1230/2018 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 4.1.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.6408 OF 2019 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4142/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 4.6.2019.