Kerala High Court
Yethi T.U vs The Regional Passport Officer on 6 June, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019
PETITIONER:
YETHI T.U.
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. T.M. UDHAYAKUMAR,
THERUVILPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MULAVUKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE
SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH
SMT.TANYA JOY
SRI.VINO JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682036.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682504.
BY ADV. SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC
SRI.JAISANKER-CGC, SRI.DILIP S. -GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner prays that the 1st respondent-the Regional Passport Officer be directed to issue him a fresh passport since his earlier passport has now expired. According to the petitioner, his earlier passport had been obtained on the strength of Ext.P2 order issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam, but that since the said order permitted him to travel abroad only for one year, the passport had also been confined to that period. The petitioner concedes that he is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.1295 of 2017 before the afore mentioned Magistrate's Court and that it was therefore, that he had obtained Ext.P2 order from the said Court.
2. The petitioner's limited grievance in this case is that in spite of Ext.P2 order, the Passport Authority is now refusing to renew his passport or issue him a fresh one, in terms of law.
WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019 3
3. Shri.Jayasanker Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Passport Authority, submits that the petitioner cannot accuse the said Authority in the manner as has been done in this writ petition because he has only acted as per law and in compliance of the directions in Ext.P2 order. He points out that in Ext.P2 the petitioner has been given permission to travel abroad only for one year and therefore, that the said Authority was well within its competence to limit the passport to one year. He, however, adds that if the petitioner is able to obtain fresh orders from the Magistrate's Court allowing him to travel abroad for longer periods, the 1st respondent would have no objection at all in considering the same in terms of law and to issue fresh orders immediately thereafter.
4. The learned Government Pleader, Shri.S.Dilip, appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, submits WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019 4 that the trial against the petitioner in Crime No.1295 of 2017 is still pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam and he affirms the submissions of Shri.Jayasanker Nair, the learned Central Government Pleader, that the petitioner must obtain clearance for travel from the Court below, before he is allowed renewal of his passport or issued fresh passport.
5. On hearing the submissions made on behalf of the official respondents as afore, Shri.Joy George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that his client is now pursuing higher studies in Poland and that a minimum of five years time would be required for him to complete his studies. He, therefore, prays that his client be given the liberty to approach the Court below for clearance of travel abroad for this period and prays that this Court direct the said Court to consider such application within a short time frame.
WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019 5
Taking note of the afore submissions and since I find substantial force in the submissions made on behalf of the official respondents, I order this writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam, and seek clearance for travel abroad for such periods as he may be deem fit; and if such application is made before the said Court within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then, the Court will consider the same, adverting to Ext.P2 earlier order, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
The petitioner, on obtaining orders from the Court below will be fully entitled to approach the 1st respondent and seek either issuance of a fresh passport or renewal of his earlier passport, in terms of law; in which event, the said Authority will issue appropriate orders without any avoidable delay WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019 6 but not later than two weeks after the petitioner so approaches it.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/6.6.19 WP(C).No. 14774 of 2019 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE IN CRIME NO.32/14 DATED 27.07.2016 WHICH IS PENDING AS C.C.1295/17 BEFORE THE JFCM-I COURT ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE DATED 14.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FILE NO.CO2060274512917 DATED 12.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSPORT ALREADY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH THE VALIDITY OF ONE YEAR.
EXHIBIT P5 THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE JOB OPPORTUNITY OF PETITIONER AT POLAND.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL MC (TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE