Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya vs Union Of India And Another on 24 August, 2023
AD-18
Ct No.09
24.08.2023
TN
WPA No. 4017 of 2023
Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya
Vs.
Union of India and another
Mr. Muhammad Obaid
.... for the petitioner
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee
.... for the UOI
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner had a valid passport which expired in
the year 2016. In the meantime, the petitioner was
accused in a proceeding for an offence primarily under
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial in that
regard is still pending.
When the petitioner's passport came up for
renewal, the petitioner was not granted such renewal
on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceeding.
It is argued that Section 6(2) of the Passports Act,
1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1967 Act") is
relevant only in the context of issuance of a new
passport. The petitioner, however, was already the
holder of a valid passport and the present question
pertains only to renewal.
2
It is submitted that the petitioner is required to
go abroad urgently to meet his daughter, who is
pursuing her higher studies in Sweden.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also
cites an unreported judgment of this court delivered
on August 11, 2023 in WPA No.14132 of 2023
(Deborima Banerjee vs. The Union of India and another)
in support of his contentions.
Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-authorities places reliance on Section
6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act and submits that the same
debars the issuance of passports in the event any
proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the applicant is pending before a
criminal court in India. It is argued that the same
principle is also applicable for renewal/issuance of a
fresh passport.
Heard learned counsel. Section 6(2)(f) clearly
stipulates that no passport can be issued to an
applicant, criminal proceedings with regard to whom
are pending before a criminal court in India.
A comprehensive perusal of the 1967 Act
indicates that the duration of passports and travel
documents has been mentioned in Section 7, which
indicates that a passport shall continue in force for
such period as may be prescribed.
Section 8 deals with extension of period of
passport and, inter alia, provides that the provisions of
the Act shall apply to such extension as they apply to
the issue of passports.
As such, in the present case, there is no
justification for not applying the bar as stipulated in
Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act, even to renewal of
passport, apart from grant of fresh passport to the
petitioner.
Hence, the remedy of the petitioner does not
lie in this court but before the appropriate criminal
court, pursuant to a Notification of the Ministry of
External Affairs, Union of India dated August 25,
1993, which has been fairly cited by learned counsel
for the respondents, which provides for an application
before the jurisdictional court in seisin of the criminal
proceedings against the applicant.
In certain circumstances as stipulated
therein, the said court can permit the petitioner to
travel. Borrowing the said principle, in the present
case, the petitioner is entitled to move the
jurisdictional criminal court where the criminal
proceeding against him is pending, for the purpose of
getting permission to travel abroad.
Upon such permission being granted, there
will be no fetter within the contemplation of Section
6(2)(f) to renew the passport of the petitioner.
However, insofar as the judgment cited the
petitioner is concerned, the same was in different
factual circumstances, where the applicant had
actually applied before the Additional Sessions Judge,
where the criminal case against the applicant was
pending. While disposing of the said writ petition, this
court had directed the Additional Sessions Judge, who
was in seisin of such criminal case, to immediately
grant a 'No Objection' to the petitioner in the context
as specified therein.
As such, the facts of the said case are entirely
distinguishable from the present case and, as such,
the ratio therein cannot be imported in the present
case.
Be that as it may, in view of the above
discussions, WPA No. 4017 of 2023 is disposed of by
granting the petitioner liberty to approach the
jurisdictional criminal court, where the criminal
proceeding against the petitioner is now pending, for
leave to travel abroad. Upon such permission being
granted by the said jurisdictional court, if the said
jurisdictional court so deems fit in accordance with
law, the petitioner will be entitled to immediately
approach the respondent no.2 for renewal of his
passport. If so approached, the respondent no.2 shall
consider such renewal and, subject to compliance of
all other formalities by the petitioner, renew the same.
All concerned shall act on the communication
of the learned Advocate for the petitioner for the
purpose of compliance of the same.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
