Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs The Regional Passport Officer & ... on 13 March, 2018
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.3.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2291/2018
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh with Mr. Anubhav
Gutpa, Advs.
versus
THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.9500/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2291/2018
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, who accepts notice for the respondents, says that
no counter affidavit needs to be filed.
4. The undisputed fact is that the validity of the petitioner's passport
bearing No.K1813196, expired on 9.4.2014. The petitioner has sought
renewal of his passport, which has not come through to date.
4.1 Pertinently, the petitioner has been convicted by the concerned Trial
Court in RCAC 12004A005 vide judgment dated 12.9.2014, and has,
consequently been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years with a fine of Rs.10 lakhs. The sentencing order is dated 15.9.2014.
4.2 It appears that the petitioner has filed an appeal against his conviction
W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2018 Pg. 1 of 3
and sentence, which is, registered as Criminal Appeal No.1464/2014. The
appeal, which is lodged in this Court, is pending adjudication.
5. It is asserted that vide order dated 21.8.2017, this Court, has
suspended the sentence passed by the trial court qua the petitioner.
6. The petitioner also contends that he had moved an application in the
Criminal appeal for issuance of "No Objection Certificate" (NOC). The
record shows that while opposing the application, the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) took the stand that no NOC was required to be issued as
in terms of Clause 17(a) of the application form prescribed for renewal of
passport, NOC was required to be issued only if criminal proceedings were
pending against the accused. In other words the stand of CBI was that since
the petitioner had already been convicted, NOC was not required to be
issued.
6.1 The petitioner claims that it is in these circumstances that he
withdrew his application for issuance of an NOC. The record also shows
that the petitioner had filed two representations with the respondents for
renewal of his passport. These representations are dated: 1.2.2018 and
26.2.2018. According to the petitioner, he has received no response qua
these representations.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondents
are directed to deliberate upon the representations filed by the petitioner, and
thereupon, pass a speaking order with regard to his request for renewal of
passport.
8. Let the needful be done within 10 weeks from today. If necessary, the
petitioner will be called for personal hearing in the matter.
W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2018 Pg. 2 of 3
9. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 13, 2018/pmc
W.P.(C) No.2291 of 2018 Pg. 3 of 3
