Telangana High Court
Chada Laxmi Narasimha Reddy vs The Union Of India on 13 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.14129 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr.Sanjeeva Reddy Gillela, learned Central Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and
2.
2. The petitioner has approached the Court seeking the following relief:
"......to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not renewing the passport of the petitioner bearing No. Y2617855 for a period of 10 (ten) years and in renewing the same for a period of one year only i.e. from 16.05.2024 to 15.05.2025, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently, direct the Respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No.Y2617855 for a period of 10 (ten) years in accordance with Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ petition is as under:
2
SN,J WP_14129_2024
i) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.H9026498 for a period of 10 years. As the same was due to expire, petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the said passport vide file No.HY9074719237522, dated 28.10.2022. The said application was considered by the second respondent and a clarification was sought from the petitioner by issuing a letter reference No.SCN/ 313783233/22, dated 23.11.2022 on the ground that an adverse police verification report was received stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.220 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 290 and 506 of IPC on the file of P.S. Dubbak which is under investigation.
In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his clarification on the said issue, but since the file was still pending with the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached the office of 2nd respondent and the petitioner was informed that his passport would not be renewed till finalization of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.220 of 2022 on the file of P.S.Dubbak.
ii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 6949 of 2024 and this Court, by its Order dated 18.3.2024, 3 SN,J WP_14129_2024 was pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent herein to consider the explanation dated 18.1.2023 furnished by the petitioner in response to the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 23.11.2022, for renewal of her passport subject to imposing various conditions, which reads as under:-
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in Cr.No.220 of 2022, stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said case without permission of the Court and that he will co-
operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said case.;
ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent Passport Officer for renewal of his passport;
iv) The Respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law;
v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in, Cr.No.220 of 2022; and
vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law."
iii) Pursuant to the said order, petitioner is stated to have complied with all the conditions and on considering the same, the second respondent renewed the passport of the petitioner and issued a new passport bearing No.Y2617855, 4 SN,J WP_14129_2024 which is valid for a period of one year only i.e., from 16.05.2024 to 15.05.2025. Aggrieved by such action of the second respondent in renewing the passport only for a period of one year instead of ten years, as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 ("the Rules, 1980" for brevity), the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Hence, this writ petition.
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the subject issue in this present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17965 of 2023, dated 10.11.2023 and the order of this Court dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2422 of 2024, hence, the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 17965 of 2023, dated 10.11.2023 and the order of this Court dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2422 of 2024.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
5
SN,J WP_14129_2024 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
5. This Court under similar circumstances had been passing orders directing the respondent-Regional Passport Authority to consider the application of the petitioner seeking issuance/renewal/release of passport. This court further opines that, pendency of criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny issuance of a passport or deny renewal of passport or impound or detain a passport since the right to personal liberty of an individual would include not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a Passport.
6. It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondents that, in terms of the Gazette notification vide G.S.R. 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 issued under Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Act, 1967 read with Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 1967, the petitioner is required to obtain permission from the Court concerned in order to travel abroad and for issuance of a passport and in terms of such permission only 6 SN,J WP_14129_2024 the passport of the petitioner can be renewed as the petitioner is involved in criminal case and the same is pending for disposal.
7. In terms of the said Gazette notification, dated 25.08.1993, if no period is specified by the Court concerned while granting permission for travel abroad or for renewal of the passport, the passport would be renewed only for a period of one year and accordingly, in terms of the said Gazette notification, the passport of the petitioner is renewed for a period of one year. The purpose of putting restriction against the persons who are involved in a criminal case is with a view to ensure their presence for disposal of the said criminal case in accordance with law. No doubt, the petitioner herein is involved in Crime No.220 of 2022 of Dubbak Police Station.
8. The petitioner herein, having been aggrieved by the refusal order passed by the second respondent refusing to renew/issue passport, approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.6949 of 2024 and this Court, having taken note of pendency of the said crime, disposed of 7 SN,J WP_14129_2024 the said Writ Petition by imposing various conditions, as noted hereinabove. By virtue of the said conditions, sufficient safeguards have been provided to ensure the presence of the petitioner and also to ensure that the petitioner does not leave the country without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. In the order passed by this Court, this Court has neither restricted the second respondent nor issued any specific direction to renew the passport only for a period of one year or any further period. In the absence of prescribing any such period and in the light of the various safeguards that are provided by imposing conditions in the order passed by this Court in order, dated 18.03.2024 in W.P.No.6949 of 2024, the purpose of imposing restrictions on issuance/renewal of the passport is taken care of well. Once this Court directed for consideration of the case of the petitioner for renewal/reissue of passport after holding that the petitioner cannot be denied renewal of his passport on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case, it is obligatory on the part of the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal in accordance with the Rules, 1980. Rule 12 of the 8 SN,J WP_14129_2024 Rules, 1980 provides for duration of the passports or renewal of documents, wherein it provides for renewal of a passport for ten years in the normal course. In the light of the earlier order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered under Rule 12 of the Rules, 1980 by treating the same as an application submitted in the normal course but the second respondent, instead of renewing the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years, renewed the passport for a period of one year only.
9. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the Judgment dated 13.03.2014, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 356 in "Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India", observed at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7, as under:
"6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.
7. In the present case, the Respondents contended that the order of the learned Magistrate did not specify the period for which the passport is issued and in the 9 SN,J WP_14129_2024 light of Notification dated 23rd August, 1993 (Annexure "6" to the petition), the passport of the citizen against whom the proceedings are pending in the criminal court in India, shall be issued for a period specified by the court and if no period is specified, the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. This court held that interpretation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20th September, 2006 is contrary to the express language of the order. When the order speaks about renewal of the passport in terms of the Passport Rules, reference must be made to Rule 12 alone and the Passport Officer was bound to issue the passport either for a period of 10 years or for a period of 20 years as the case may be in his discretion. The Passport Officer could not have at any rate renewed the passport for a period less than 10 years. Accordingly, the Rule was made absolute and the Regional Passport Officer was directed to issue the passport, renewed for a period of 10 years or 20 years."
10. Another Judgment dated 30.11.2016 of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 14539 : (2020) 3 AIR Bom R 459 in Mr. Samip Nitin Ranjani v. Union of India and others, observed at relevant paragraphs 3 and 4, as under: 10
SN,J WP_14129_2024 "3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Passport Authorities, instead of renewing the passport for a period of 10 years as provided under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, has renewed the passport only for a period of one year. Challenging the same, writ was filed.
4. In our view, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Division Bench of this Court has issued guidelines which are to be followed by the Respondents on the receipt of application for renewal of passport. It is observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:
"10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court has directed that the passport may be renewed as per the "Rules".
11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15 11 SN,J WP_14129_2024 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for at least ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants at least for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders 12 SN,J WP_14129_2024 to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned."
11. Taking into consideration:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
(b) The observations of the Courts in the judgments referred to and extracted above,
(c) The earlier orders of this Court, dated 10.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.17965 of 2023 and the order of this Court, dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2422 of 2024 under identical circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the second respondent is directed to renew the passport bearing No.Y2617855 for a period of ten years and reissue the same subject to payment of usual charges by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall strictly comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in its order, 13 SN,J WP_14129_2024 in W.P.No.6949 of 2024 dated 18.03.2024, as and when the petitioner intends to travel abroad. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Dated: 13-06-2024 ksl