Telangana High Court
Mirza Adil Rafeeq Baig vs The Union Of India on 24 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.10929 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"...to grant appropriate relief, more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the Show Cause Notice No.30(603)POL/2016, dated 04.10.2016 issued by the second respondent seeking explanation about the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case vide FIR.No.441/2016, dated 22.08.2016 u/s.498-A IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act of PS Mailardevpally, Cyberabad, despite closing the subject by the Consular Section on the ground of pendency of criminal case before the Ranga Reddy Sessions Court and petitioner's clarification as sought for, as highly discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violating Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
2. The case of the petitioner is that, after divorce with his first wife, he got married for the second time on 10.06.2023 as per the Muslim rites and customs. A complaint has been lodged by the petitioner's wife vide Crime No.441 of 2016, dated 22.08.2016 of P.S. Mailardevpally, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Acting on the said complaint submitted by the wife of the petitioner, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice vide proceedings No.30(603) POL/2016, dated 04.10.2016 directing the petitioner to furnish explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in pursuance of the show cause notice, he 2 appeared before the respondents and explained the reasons for registration of the case and requested them to withdraw the show cause notice and when the respondents have not acted upon the said request, the petitioner has registered his grievance on 17.09.2020 and even after registration of the grievance/complaint vide I.D.No.SB1PIA107237920, but till date, the respondents have not taken any action to address his grievance or closing the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in the year 2016.
3. Mr. Godugu Narender, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1, has submitted that mere registration of the criminal case against the petitioner does not take away the right of the petitioner to possess the passport. It is further submitted that every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty and pendency of criminal case against a person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10(d) of the Passports Act, 1967 ("the Act, 1967" for brevity), a passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude to imprisonment not less than two years. 1 (1978)1 SCC 248 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in view of the provisions of the Act, 1967, the action of the respondents in impounding the passport, reissuing or cancelling the passport without following the procedure amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the further case of the petitioner that, since the respondents have not taken any action on his grievance, dated 17.09.2020 or the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted a representation to withdraw the show cause notice, dated 04.10.2016.
4. Mr. Aravind Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, contended that the present Writ Petition is filed questioning the show cause notice and as such, the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner is not maintainable.
5. It is settled law that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to conclude that the petitioner is not entitled to possess passport under the provisions of the Act, 1967.
6. After considering the submissions of the respective counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents duly including the acquittal orders in Crime No.441 of 2016, dated 22.08.2016 of P.S. Mailardevpally, 4 Cyberabad, seeking to withdraw the show cause notice or for reissuance of the passport, if the petitioner is entitled, subject to complying with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and the Rules made thereunder.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J 24th April 2024 RRB