Telangana High Court
Mohammed Abdul Qadeer Sohail vs The Regional Passport Officer on 25 April, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.17057 OF 2022
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter file No. HY3073344645921 dated 20-7-2021 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the Assistant Solicitor General of India.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holder of passport bearing No.M1691834 issued by the respondent. He filed an online application requesting the respondent to change his name particulars in his passport and to re-issue a fresh passport and filed a declaration published in two local newspapers about change of his name and followed the other requirements of the respondent. A criminal case was pending against the petitioner vide CC No.6105 of 2019 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar, RR District for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC. The petitioner obtained bail in the said case as all the offences were bailable. The petitioner voluntarily disclosed in his application about the pendency of the criminal case. The Dr.GRR,J 2 WP No.17057 of 2022 respondent received the application of the petitioner and informed vide letter dated 20-7-2021 directing the petitioner to get permission from the concerned court for change of particulars of the petitioner and to re-issue his passport. The petitioner filed an application before the concerned court, but the court returned his petition as not maintainable as the petition was filed without mentioning the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.10215 of 2022 before this court challenging the orders of the court below, but the said petition was dismissed granting liberty to challenge the letter dated 20-7-2021 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad. Hence, he filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel representing the Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the petitioner would need to make an application before the concerned court for re-issuance of passport as per Office Memorandum No. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10-10-2019 and Notification No.GSR.570(E) dated 25-8-1993.
5. Perused the record. The orders of this court in Criminal Petition No.10215 of 2021 dated 3-1-2022 would disclose that the petitioner made an application before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District under Section 451 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Dr.GRR,J 3 WP No.17057 of 2022 Regional Passport Officer to re-issue his passport, but made an application before passport authorities requesting for change of his name, as such, it was observed that the petitioner was not clear in his grievance and the Regional Passport Officer was also not clear about the grievance of the petitioner and the relief sought by him. It would disclose that the petitioner had not applied properly before the concerned court stating about his request for change of name and the reasons for such request. As the petitioner was seeking for change of his name and for re-issuance of a passport, when a criminal case was pending against him, the permission of the court is very much required where the criminal case is pending for such re-issuance of the passport, as the petitioner might leave the country by changing his name with the re-issued passport.
6. The Office Memorandum of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India vide No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10-10-2019 and the notification issued by the Central Government under GSR.570(E) clause
(d) dated 25-8-1993 also would disclose that the applicants who were facing criminal cases were required to submit permission of the concerned court where the criminal case was pending, seeking permission to depart from India from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act 1967, subject to the conditions mentioned in the notification.
Dr.GRR,J 4 WP No.17057 of 2022
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not intending to depart from India but only made an application for change of his name and for re-issuance of a fresh passport, the direction of the Regional Passport Authority to approach the concerned court and returning his application was illegal.
8. The respondent cannot refuse to renew a passport on the sole ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 held that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 of Constitution of India must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the procedure must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.
9. The notification issued by the Central Government requiring the applicants to obtain permission from the concerned court where the criminal cases are pending against them is justified by the Bombay High Court in Deepak Dwarakasingh Chhabria v, Union of India2 and by the 1 AIR 1978 SC 597 2 AIR 1997 BOMBAY 181 Dr.GRR,J 5 WP No.17057 of 2022 Gujarat High Court in Dhiren Baxi v. Regional Passport Officer, Ahmadabad3 and by this Court in WP No 21072 of 2018 dated 26-6-2018.
10. Considering the above cases, it is considered fit to dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned court once again before which the criminal case is pending against him by making a proper application with all the relevant facts and the concerned court is directed to consider the same and to pass orders on merits in accordance with law.
11. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J April 25, 2022 KTL 3 AIR 2003 GUJARAT 108