Naralasetti Venkata Durga Prasad vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1950 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1950 AP
Judgement Date : 14 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Naralasetti Venkata Durga Prasad vs Union Of India on 14 June, 2021

       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

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.

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;

(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.