Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Arora vs Union Of India on 30 March, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Orders on : 23/03/2022
Order Passed on : 30/03/2022
Writ Petition (Civil) No.1700 of 2016
Ajay Arora S/o Karam Chand Arora, Aged About 48 Years, R/o B-16,
Rama Lifecity, Mungeli Road, Opposite Jain International School, Sakri,
District Bilaspur Pin 495001, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Joint Secretary, (C.P.O.) C.P.V. Division,
Ministry Of External Affairs, Room No.8, Patiala House, Tilak Marg,
New Delhi Pin- 110001
2. Regional Passport Office, Through Regional Passport Officer, 1 st Floor,
Commercial Complex, Sector- 4, Pandit Deen Dayal Uppadhyay Nagar,
Rohinipuram, District- Raipur, PIN- 492010, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents/U.O.I. : Ms. Ayushi Agrawal and Mr. Rohitasva
Singh, Advocates on behalf of Mr. R.K.
Mishra, Asst.S.G.
S.B.:-Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
CAV Order
30-03-2022
1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for issuance of direction to
the respondent authorities to consider on his request for re-issuing his
passport.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a passport on 03.03.2000
having validity of 20 years. The passport has gone missing. In the
meantime, on the basis of a false complaint against the petitioner, he
has been tried and convicted by the trial Court. The petitioner has
preferred an Appeal before the High Court, which is registered as
Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2004, in which, he has been granted bail
after suspension of sentence.
3. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have refused to reissue
the passport by communication dated 07.04.2016 vide Annexure-P/1
that the petitioner has not submitted the copy of Court judgment of
the criminal cases pending against him and N.O.C. from the concerned
Court, where his cases are pending. It is submitted that petitioner is
already a holder of the passport and he is praying only for issuing a
duplicate passport, therefore, such formalities are not required. Which
have been made the pretext for refusing to reissue the passport
already held by the petitioner. It is submitted that pendency of
criminal case is not a ground to withhold the passport. It has been
clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Satwant Singh
Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New
Delhi & Others. reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1836, Menaka
Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597
and Daler Singh Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 215 P and H 206.
Therefore, it is prayed that respondent authorities be directed to
reissue the passport in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions and
submits that the Government of India has issued a notification dated
25th of August, 1993, according to which the petitioner is required to
furnish the details and documents for the issuance of passport,
therefore, the respondent authorities have not committed any error.
Hence, the petition may be dismissed and disposed off.
5. Considered on the submissions. It is clear on the basis of the law laid
down in the judgment cited hereinabove, pendency of a criminal case
against any person cannot be made a ground for non-issuance of
passport in his favour. It is further a case of issuance of a duplicate
passport for the reason that the petitioner has lost the passport which
was earlier issued. The notification on which the respondents are
placing reliance grants exemption to the citizens of India against
whom any criminal proceedings are pending in the Indian Court subject
to certain conditions and that to appears to be in case when a person
is applying for issuance of passport, hence, under these circumstances,
I am of this view that the respondent authorities are committing an
error. It appears that there is no restriction placed upon the petitioner
by the Court concerned before which the Appeal of petitioner is
pending and also that it is a case only for re-issuance of duplicate
passport of the original passport of the petitioner, therefore, this
petition is disposed off. The respondents authorities are directed to
reissue to the petitioner the duplicate passport of the original
passport subject to the other compliance of rules and regulations as
the case may be.
6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
