Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ravi Karumbiah vs Union Of India on 22 January, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 33084-33085/2013 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAVI KARUMBIAH
SON OF MANDANNA KODANGADA
GANAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. SMT. GOPIKA KARUMBIAH
WIFE OF SRI RAVI KARUMBIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 1076,
12TH MAIN ROAD, HAL II STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 008.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.M.U.POONACHA, Adv.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
AKBAR BHAVAN, PATIALA HOUSE
ISIL BUILDING & SASTRY BHAVAN
NEW DELHI - 110 011.
2
2. PASSPORT OFFICER
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
PASSPORT OFFICE, 80 FEET ROAD
08TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 095.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.T.M.VENKATA REDDY, CGC)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO REISSUE A FRESH
PASSPORTS TO BOTH PETITIONERS FOR A DURATION OF
10 YEARS WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTING PASSPORT
BEARING N.Z2548971 OF PETITIONER NO.1 & REISSUE
PASSPORT WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTING PASSPORT
BEARING NO.K9136118 OF PETITIONER NO.2 & TO PASS
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEFS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the Respondent No.2 to re-issue a fresh passport to both the petitioners for a duration of 10 years with regard to the existing 3 passport bearing No.Z2548971 of petitioner No.1 and passport bearing No.K9136118 of petitioner No.2.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the Directors of M/s.Carpenters Classic India Private Limited and other sister companies. They are engaged in the business of import and sales of modular kitchens in Bangalore and other places in India. Due to their nature of business, they are also required to frequently travel abroad and in that regard, both the petitioners had applied for issue of passport. The fact that the passports bearing No. Z2548971 and K9136118 had been issued to the petitioners is not in dispute. The second respondent has however issued the said passport limiting it for a period of one year and it is in that regard, the petitioners have a grievance as the same would effect their travel plan in as much as the issue of VISA would get effected if the remaining period of the passport is not for a sufficiently long 4 period. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners contend that they are entitled to issue of passport, valid for a period of 10 years as provided under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The action taken by them is sought to be justified by contending that Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 enables the second respondent to refuse issue of passport in the circumstance mentioned therein. The respondents, in their objection statement have also referred to the order dated 13.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.44667-78/2012 where at an earlier point, this Court had directed issue of passport, but it is contended since no direction was issued for the passport to be issued for a particular period, it is contended that the period for which it has been issued is justified. Reference is also made to the cases pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.22814/2006 5 and C.C.No.554/2008 to contend that the pendency of the said cases justifies the action of the second respondent in limiting the period of passport for one year. It is therefore contended that the action of the respondent is justified.
4. Having noticed the rival contentions and since reference has been made to sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act to justify the action of the respondent and also reference is made to the pendency of the criminal proceedings, it would be necessary to take note of the sequence that has occurred in the instant case as the petitioners are before this Court on the very same issue for the fourth time. In that regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the order dated 19.03.2010 passed in W.P.No.22446/2009, a copy of which is available at Annexure - 'E' to the petition. In the said proceedings, the first petitioner herein was before this Court assailing the communication dated 6 31.03.2009 issued by the second respondent herein cancelling the passport issued to the first petitioner. While considering the rival contentions therein, in a circumstance where the second respondent had sought to justify the action by referring to Section 6 of the Act and also the pending criminal proceedings against the first petitioner, this Court on taking note of the same was of the view that the second respondent was not justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner since the proceedings referred to were private disputes between the tenant and the land lady which lead to the cases. Therefore, it was held that the refusal to issue passport by placing reliance on Section 6 of the Passport Act was not justified. Infact, the said decision forms the basis for the manner in which the consideration of the issue of passport to the petitioners is required to the made. In that regard, it is also necessary to refer to the subsequent orders passed by 7 this Court in W.P.No.26897/2010 dated 22.09.2010 and also the order dated 13.12.2012 passed in W.P.No.44677-78/2012. From all the said orders, it is clear that the case of the petitioners herein had been considered by this Court and appropriate directions had been issued to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for issue of passport notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Hence, to the extent that sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act cannot be pleaded as a bar for issue of passport to the petitioners or to limit the duration is clear. Hence, in such circumstance, the only question for consideration is with regard to the appropriate period for which the passports were required to be issued.
6. With regard to this aspect of the matter, as seen from the very contention of respondent, there is no restriction placed by this Court or is there any 8 direction to issue it for a specific period. Therefore, when this Court after considering the rival contentions has arrived at a conclusion that the second respondent is required to consider the case of the petitioners for issue of passport, certainly, such issue of passport would have to be in compliance and in consonance to the Rules providing for the same. In that regard, a perusal of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1980 would provide that the duration for which the passport is to be issued, other than in the case of children below 15 years would be for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of issue. Hence, the minimum period provided therein is for a period of 10 years. In such circumstance, when this Court had directed that the case of the petitioners is to be considered and in that regard, when the second respondent in obedience to the orders of this Court had taken a decision to issue the passport in favour of the 9 petitioner after securing the necessary verification to be made, the passport certainly was required to be issued for a period of 10 years unless there was any other compelling reason.
7. In the instant case, the only reason put forth on behalf of the second respondent for issue of passport for a shorter duration is the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. As already noticed, this Court after making reference to the said criminal proceedings had arrived at a conclusion that passport is required to be issued to the petitioners, despite the pendency of the cases after taking into consideration the nature of the proceedings. If that be the position, the issue of passport either for a shorter duration or for the duration as provided under the Rules even in the background of the pendency of the criminal proceedings would become immaterial. It is also necessary to state that notwithstanding the issue 10 of passport to the petitioners if the need arises for passing any subsequent orders including for impounding of the passport, such orders, in any event, can be passed by the second respondent, if there are any specific directions issued by the Court before which the criminal proceedings are pending or by any other Court relating to those aspects of the matter. Further, it would also be open for the Court to order deposit of the passport if the need arises. Hence, at this juncture, the second respondent was not justified in limiting the period of passport issued to the petitioner only for a period of one year. In such circumstance, I am of the opinion that the mandamus as sought for in the petition is to be granted subject, ofcourse to the condition of reserving liberty to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, if ultimately, there are any specific directions issued by the Courts in any of the pending proceedings. 11
8. In that view, for the reasons stated above, a direction is issued to the second respondent to issue appropriate orders and make necessary endorsements in the passport bearing No.Z2548971 relating to the first petitioner and in the passport bearing No.K9136118 relating to the second petitioner indicating the validity of the said passport for a period of 10 years from the date on which it was issued or issue fresh passport valid for 10 years. The said orders shall be passed and the endorsement shall be made or fresh passport be issued by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date on which a certified copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent.
These petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh*