HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.21042 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in refusing to issue passport to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.5365/2018 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to 2nd respondent to issue passport to the petitioner
2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) The petitioner was issued passport bearing No.B5174894 on 16.03.2001 and the same was expired on 15.03.2011. The petitioner lost his passport and so he approached 2nd respondent for reissue of passport vide application in File No.VJ2072455540919 dated 20.09.2019. The 2nd respondent raised an objection vide letter reference No.OBJ/310088669/20 dated 07.08.2020 stating that it came to their notice that Cr.No.388/2015 under Section 420 IPC r/w 511 IPC, Section 20 of the Treasures Trove Act, 1878 and Section 25 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 was registered on the file of A.S. Nagar P.S., Vijayawada City and pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada against the petitioner and some others and thus the petitioner was required to file proof of clearance of case and clarify in person in the passport office.
(b) The petitioner's case is that in the above crime the police filed charge sheet and case was taken on file and registered as 2 C.C.No.5365/2018 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence under Section 420 r/w 511 IPC. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Clr.P.No.22/2020 to quash the proceedings against him, wherein the interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.5365/2018 was granted. In that view, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the application of the petitioner. The petitioner is an interior designer and involved in the business of interior works of residential houses and office places and he is required to visit Malaysia for a short period as a part of his profession.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.V.Satish, and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for respondents representing learned Assistant Solicitor General argued that in the renewal application the petitioner suppressed the factum of his involvement in criminal case and after verification, the 2nd respondent came to know about the pendency of the criminal case and therefore, his application was returned with an instruction to produce the copy of the judgment showing his acquittal.
5. It is seen that Crl.P.No.22/2020 was dismissed by this Court on 14.06.2021. Therefore, the interim order passed in the said criminal petition was closed and the same is of no avail to the petitioner. 3
6. Be that it may, this Court enquired regarding availability of any provision in the Passports Act, 1967 or any circular order giving guidelines for issuing a passport/renewal of passport to a person pending criminal case against him. Learned counsel representing Assistant Solicitor General replied affirmatively and produced the copy of Notification dated 25.08.1993 in G.S.R.570(E) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. 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;4
(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;
(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)
7. Therefore, the petitioner, in terms of the above notification, has to file an application before the Court in which the criminal case is pending against him and after obtaining an order from the court, produce the same before the 2nd respondent for considering his application for renewal.
8. Upon perusal of the above notification, 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 Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, 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 pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 14.06.2021 MVA 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.21025 of 2020 14th June, 2021 MVA