Gandu Purnachandra Rao vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 872 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.2000 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner has approached this Court complaint

that his application for renewal of his passport No.H5323411 as

per application No. VJ2073145164120 dated 11.12.2020 was not

accepted by 2nd respondent and the passport has not been issued

to him.

2. Ms.Alekhya appearing for Assistant Solicitor General

would submit that in the course of the police enquiry, it has come

out that a criminal complaint was registered against the petitioner

bearing F.I.R.No.321 of 2018 in the Lalapet Police Station, Guntur

Urban District and the same is pending, at that stage.

3. She further submits that in view of the said pendency,

the passport of the petitioner could not be issued and relies upon

Section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 which stipulates that the

passport authority can refuse to issue a passport on the ground

that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in

India. It is submitted that no charge sheet has yet been filed in

this case.

4. Sri A.Sai Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner relies

upon a Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and

Bangalore dated 01.10.2020 in W.P.No.9141 of 2020. He also

relies upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi equivalent to Ashok Kanna Vs Central Bureau of

Investigation1 and the Judgment of the High Court of Madras

dated 27.06.2014 in the case of W.Jaihar William vs. State of

Tamil Nadu2.

5. A perusal of Section 6(2) (f) would go to show that the

said condition would operate only when a Court of appropriate

criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case and the said case

is pending before the criminal Court. In the present case, the

matter is still pending investigation and no charge sheet has been

filed. In the said circumstances, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f)

would not be applicable.

6. As far as Section 6(2) (f) is concerned, the Central

Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993

stipulating that issue of passport to a person falling within the

ambit of Section 6(2) (f) need not be stalled, provided the said

person obtains Court orders specifying the further period of valid

passport or specifying a period of travel abroad.

7. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed

directing the 3rd respondent to issue a passport to the petitioner.

However, in the event of charge sheet being filed after

investigation in F.I.R.No.321 of 2018 in the Lalapet Police

Station, the petitioner would be required to obtain necessary

instructions from the Court where the charge sheet is filed.

These instructions shall be in relation to the further period of

validity of the said passport and conditions, if any, that may be

imposed by the Court in relation to his travel abroad.

2019 (265) DLT 614

(2014)8MLJ61

8. In the event, the petitioner does not take steps for

obtaining such instructions, it would be open to the 3rd

respondent to revoke the passport of the petitioner after due

notice to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

16.02.2021 RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.2000 of 2021

16.02.2021

RJS