Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kiran Kumar Rallapalli vs The Union Of India on 29 December, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.22077 of 2020
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the letter in Reference No.OBJ/310427239/20 dated 17.11.2020 issued by 3rd respondent refusing to reissue the passport effecting certain changes to existing personal particulars of the petitioner by adding the name of his newly married wife.
2. The petitioner works in a private company, Qatar, Middle East. He married Pravallika on 15.02.2013. It appears, due to some matrimonial bickering his wife gave a report, basing on which, the police of Mahila Police Station, Chittoor registered a case in Cr.No.7/2015 against the petitioner and his relations under Sections 498(A), 323, 325 r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As he was at Qatar, a NBW was issued against him and charge sheet was filed and case was registered as C.C.No.281/2015. On 06.02.2017, the petitioner returned to India and he was arrested at Chennai Airport and was handed over by the Airport Authorities to the Station House Officer, Mahila Police Station, Chittoor along with his passport, who came to execute NBW. He was then produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and in Crl.M.P.No.1630/2016 the petitioner was granted conditional bail. It would appear that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.129/2017 seeking return of his passport and to delete the lookout circular issued against him. The said 2 petition was partly allowed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor directing return of the passport to the petitioner while rejecting the other prayer.
(a) Be that it may, the case of the petitioner is that while contesting the criminal case, he filed H.M.O.P.No.32/2017 against his wife Pravallika before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor seeking divorce. She remained ex parte and consequently the trial Court granted divorce by its order dated 28.02.2019. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had second marriage on 17.04.2019 with one Priyanka Naidu. The petitioner obtained leave from 07.11.2020 to 10.12.2020 from his employer and returned from Qatar to India. He intended to include the name of his wife Priyanka Naidu in his passport and for that purpose he submitted an application on 10.11.2020 to 3rd respondent for reissue of his passport vide File No.VJ 8073092651720. On verification, 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 17.11.2020 stating that as per the police verification report, the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.7/2015 of Mahila Police Station, Chittoor and therefore, the petitioner has to submit his explanation along with required documents. On 17.11.2020 itself, the petitioner personally went and submitted his explanation stating that in view of the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.129/2017 in C.C.No.281/2015 and Crl.M.P.No.225/2017 in Crl.M.P.No.129/2017 there was no hurdle for the passport authority to include the revised 3 particulars about his marital status and to reissue the passport.
However, 3rd respondent did not consider his request.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard Sri K.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents 1 to 3, and learned Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents 4 & 5.
4. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was issued passport on 09.03.2013, which was valid upto 08.03.2023 and therefore, his is not a case of issuing fresh passport or renewal of the same. His application was only to revise his marital status and to include the name of his newly married second wife and to reissue the passport. However, instead of considering his request, 3rd respondent rejected his request on the ground that the petitioner is involved in criminal case. Learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.1630/2016 and his seized passport was also returned by the order of the Court in Crl.M.P.No.129/2017, respondent No.3 cannot reject his application. He would submit that the ground specified in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act') has no application to his case. He would further submit that the notification No.G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs is also not applicable to him. Therefore, he need not seek the permission of the criminal court where C.C.No.281/2015 4 is pending. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in W.P.9141/2020.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Solicitor General while opposing the writ petition argued that at the first instance the passport was issued to the petitioner in the year 2013 when his personal history had a clean slate as he was not involved in any crime then. However, after his marriage on 15.02.2013, due to some matrimonial disputes, his wife gave report to the police, which was culminated in filing charge sheet and now C.C.No.281/2015 is pending against the petitioner and his relations. It is further argued that the petitioner obtained ex parte divorce in H.M.O.P.No.32/2017 and thereafter he married another woman and now he seeks to include the name of his second wife in the place of first wife in his passport and for that purpose he submitted an application for reissue of the passport with the amended particulars. He concealed the factum of pendency of C.C.No.281/2015. However, during the course of verification, the passport authority came to know about his involvement in criminal case and thus, issued the impugned letter directing the petitioner to submit the particulars about the case and to offer his explanation. To avoid the same and to get the passport with renewed particulars, he filed the present writ petition. Learned Assistant Solicitor General vehemently argued that since the petitioner is involved in criminal case, Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is very much applicable and the only method under which he can secure the reissued passport is by 5 following the procedure prescribed in the notification No.G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, as per which, he has to approach the criminal Court wherein the criminal case is pending and seek permission of the said Court.
6. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General. As argued by her, at the inception, since his history was clean, petitioner was issued passport No.K9688083 on 09.03.2013, which is valid upto 08.03.2023. However, after marriage, the petitioner was involved in C.C.No.281/2015. The material papers show that the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.32/2017 and obtained ex parte decree of divorce against his wife and later he married another woman by name Priyanka Naidu. He seeks to reissue the passport by amending his marital status i.e., by substituting his second wife's name in the place of former wife.
In this backdrop, relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and covered rules have to be scrutinized.
7. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 lays down thus:
6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc. (1) xxxxx (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: -
(a) xxx
(b) xxx xxxxxx 6
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
Thus, the above provision pelucidly tells that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document to any person against whom the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him are pending before a criminal court.
(a) Be that it may, Form EA(P)-1 of Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980 deals with the reissue of passport. The said Form is thus:
FORM EA(P)-1 FOR INDIA GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PASSPORT APPLICATION FORM (NO.1) (For New/Re-issue/Replacement of Lost/Damaged Passport) xxx xxx xxx xxx 17 (a) Have you at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of this application been convicted by a court in India for any criminal offence & sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more? If so, give name of the court, case number and relevant sections of Law. (Attach copy of judgment)
(b) Are any criminal proceedings pending against you before a court in India? If so, give name of court, case number and relevant sections of Law.
(c) If answer at (b) is yes, please furnish No Objection Certificate from competent court for grant of Passport.
8. Therefore, a conjunctive study of Section 6(2)(f) read with the Form EA(P)-1 would clearly depict that for granting a new/reissue, replacement of lost/damaged passport, Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is very much applicable. In terms of the above provisions, the passport 7 authority may refuse to grant a passport if the applicant is involved in a criminal case unless he produces a No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court.
(a) In the above context, the Ministry of External Affairs, issued notification vide G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993. The said notification reads thus:
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993 G.S.R.570(E)._ In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued_
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;8
(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.
[No.VI/401/37/79] L.K. PONAPPA, Jt. Secy. (CPV)
9. Therefore, an applicant shall secure a No Objection Certificate from the criminal Court in which his case is pending and produce before the passport authority to grant him the passport to enable him to travel abroad. Since the procedure prescribed above is clear in this regard, the contention of the petitioner that Section 6(2)(f) has no application to his case and that he need not secure NOC from the competent criminal Court cannot be countenanced.
10. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner can be distinguished on facts. In that case, the petitioner therein was working in United States of America and on 22.01.2020 he applied for renewal of his passport through his travel agency before the Indian Consulate, New York, USA stating that his passport was due to expire on 06.07.2020. In response, he received an e-mail from the Regional Passport Office, Bangalore (R3 therein) stating that they received a letter from 4th respondent therein informing that a criminal case was registered against him. The petitioner replied that he had absolutely no knowledge of any criminal case pending against him. He made a request with 3rd respondent to issue a temporary passport, so that he can travel to India to ascertain the details of the alleged criminal case pending against him. When there was no response, he filed writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. In that backdrop, it was 9 observed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act does not provide for refusal to issue passport for a person who intends to travel back to India and the said provision was applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of the passport.
11. In the instant case, the petitioner seeks reissue of passport by making changes in his marital status, probably to enable him and his wife to travel from India to Qatar. As such, the only course open for the applicant is to follow the procedure prescribed in the notification vide G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs read with Form EA(P)-1.
12. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to follow the procedure contemplated in terms of the notification G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, read with Form EA(P)-1 of Schedule III of the Passport Rules, 1980, in which case, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order on merits expeditiously. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 29.12.2020 Note: Issue C.C. by 31.12.2020 (B/o) MVA