Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.83 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dhiren Baxi vs Regional Passport Officer on 3 September, 2002
10. Considering the aforesaid notification issued by the Central
Government, as well as considering the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in my
view, this petition is required to be allowed by giving opportunity to the
petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate with an appropriate application
for permitting him to go abroad for a particular time limit. If the concerned
Magistrate permits the petitioner to go abroad for a particular period on the
basis of such order, it will be open for the petitioner to request the passport
authority to grant him passport for a limited period, during which he is
permitted to go abroad. The petitioner may accordingly approach the concerned
criminal court, with a prayer to permit him to go abroad and if any such
application is preferred, the concerned criminal court may decide such
application in accordance with law. If the concerned criminal court, before
whom the criminal cases are pending, permits the petitioner to go abroad, the
passport authority may pass appropriate order in the matter of issuing passport
to the petitioner in terms of the order of the criminal court and subject to the
conditions laid down by the Notification. As observed by the Bombay High Court,
the passport authority, in future cases of a similar nature, may inform the
applicants, against whom any criminal case is pending, about the Notification of
the Central Government and may inform such applicant that they may approach the
concerned and if any such order is passed by the Magistrate, permitting such
applicant to go abroad, the passport authority may dispose of such applications
in view of the Notification and in view of the provisions of the Passport Act.
Shayam Dwarkadas Chabria vs The Regional Passport Officer & Another on 15 November, 1999
9. Therefore, in view of the notification issued by the Central Government
and as well as the law laid down in the above referred decisions, the renewal of
the petitioner's passport cannot be refused merely on the ground of pendency of
the criminal case. In fact, the petitioner ought to have been directed to
approach the Court concerned before which the criminal case is pending and move
an appropriate application seeking permission of the Court for necessary
directions. Hence, the stand taken by the respondent by stating that mere
pendency of the criminal case would operate as a bar for seeking renewal of the
passport cannot be sustained.