Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai refusing the passport to the petitioner under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 ('Act' for short). Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a citizen and national on India. The petitioner was issued passport on 5th July, 1984. When the validity of this passport had expired on 4th July, 1989, the same was renewed for a further period of five years i.e. upto 4th July, 1994.

3. In the meanwhile, the validity of the petitioner's passport expired on 4th July, 1994. The petitioner, therefore, made an application to the Regional Passport Officer. Mumbai for renewal of his passport which had expired on 4th July, 1994. By letter dated 2nd November, 1995 the passport authority informed the petitioner that he proposed to refuse the passport facility to the petitioner under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act on account of pending criminal case against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. By the said letter the petitioner was given opportunity to lead his case before the passport authority. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he had several meetings with the passport authority and the petitioner requested the passport authority to give inspection or furnish photo copies of the documents upon which he has drawn inference that a case against the petitioner was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. By letter dated 14th February, 1996, the petitioner again called upon passport authority to give inspection or to furnish photo copies of the documents upon which he had proposed the rejection of the petitioner's application for renewal of passport. By letter dated 22nd February, 1996 the Regional Passport Officer called the petitioner at his office on any working day between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. It is the case of the petitioner that despite several efforts to contact the passport authority to seek an appointment, the petitioner got an appointment, the petitioner got an appointment only on 15th April, 1996 wherein the passport authority intimated to the petitioner that passport could not be issued to him as the passport authority has received information that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the refusal of the passport authority to renew his passport, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

6. The short question which falls for my consideration is whether the passport authority was right in rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. The passport authority has produced a letter dated 18th July, 1996 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police/Additional S.P., ACB, Pune, enclosing a certificate issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, confirming that Regular Criminal Case No. 39 of 1995 is pending against the petitioner under Sections 12B, 409, 420, 465, 471 and 109 of the IPC and the case is fixed on 19th August, 1996. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has opined that issuance of passport of the petitioner was not recommenced. It is the case of passport authority that in view of the said letter, he had no option but to reject the petitioner's application under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. It will be useful to state briefly the legislative background of the Act before considering the relevant provisions of Section 6(2)(f). The Act was enacted on 24th June, 1967 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. V. D. Ramarathnam. Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi, . Prior to coming into force of the said Act, there was no law in India regulating the issue of passport for leaving India and going abroad. The issue of passport was entirely within the discretion of the executive and this descretion was unguided and unchallenged. In Satwant Singh Sawheny's case (Supra) the Supreme Court by a majority held that the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad and under Article 21 no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to the procedure established by law, and since no law had been made by the State regulating or prohibiting the exercise of that right, the refusal to issue a passport was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held by the Supreme Court that the discretion with the execution in the matter of refusing or issuing a passport being unchanneled and arbitrary, it was plainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence the order refusing passport of the petitioner was also invalid under that Article. This decision was accepted by he Parliament and the infirmity pointed out by it was set right by enactment of the Act. Section 6(2) of the said Act lays down 9 separate grounds on which the passport authority can refuse to issue, inter alia, a passport. By virtue of Section 8, the same grounds apply to a case for renewal of passport. Therefore, by virtue of the said Section 6(2) read with Section 8 of the said Act, it is made obligatory for the passport authority to refuse to renew the passport if one out of nine grounds mentioned in Section 6(2) is present. The relevant portion of Section 6(2) reads as follows :

"6(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 grounds, namely :
(a) .....
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal Court in India;
(g).....

7. The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Act in the land-mark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, . In that case the petitioner's passport was impounded 'in public interest' by an order dated 2nd July, 1977. The Government of India declined 'in the interest of the general public' to furnish the reasons for its decision. Thereupon, the petitioner filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The challenge was founded on various grounds. The constitutional validity of Section 10(3)(c) was also questioned. It is not necessary to deal with the judgment in detail as far as challenge to Section 10(3)(c) is concerned. Suffice it to say that the validity of Section 10(3)(c) was upheld by Supreme Court. However, it is necessary to not the law laid down by the majority in the context of Articles 14 of the Constitution. It was held that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. Such procedure must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it should be no procedure at all and the requirement of article 21 would not be satisfied. The decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi was delivered in 25th January, 1978.