Delhi High Court
Deepak Jain vs Union Of India And Anr on 8 October, 2018
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10680/2018 & CM No. 41686/2018
DEEPAK JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Yogesh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for
UOI/R-1 & R-2 with Mr Abhimanyu
Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 08.10.2018
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that
directions be issued to the respondents for re-issue his passport with a
validity period of 10 years from the date of issue instead of one year as
provided by the respondents.
2. The petitioner was issued a passport, which expired on 19.07.2017.
Prior to the said date, an FIR (FIR no.107/2012) under Section 420/468 IPC,
was filed against the petitioner. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid
proceedings, the petitioner made an application dated 06.08.2018 to the Trial
Court seeking its no objection (NOC) for reissuance of passport. By an
order dated 20.08.2010, the Trial Court allowed the petitioner's application,
interalia, recording that the Court had no objection if passport of the
applicant is re-issued by the passport authority ―as per rules.‖ The petitioner,
thereafter, applied for reissuance of a passport. Although, a passport was
issued but the validity of the said passport was limited only to one year; that
is, from 13.09.2018 to 12.09.2019.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved to the extent that the said passport has not
been renewed for a period of 10 years as provided under the Passport Rules,
1980.
4. Mr Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, a
passport can be denied to an applicant on the ground of pendency of
criminal proceedings. He submitted that the rigors of the said provision
were relaxed by a notification dated 25.08.1993, which provided for
issuance of a passport with a validity period of one year if no specific period
was specified by the concerned court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision
of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani
v. Union of India & Ors.:Civil Writ Petition No.361/2014, decided on
13.03.2014. In the said order, the Court had clarified that the use of the
words ―as per Rules‖ by the Trial Court would imply that the passport be
issued for the full term as provided under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules,
1980. He submitted that the expression ―as per Rules‖, as used in the order
dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Trial Court in this case (FIR no.107/2012)
must be read in a similar manner.
Reasons and Conclusion
6. A Division Bench of this Court had considered the similar
controversy in the case of Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India & Anr.:
2016 (154) DRJ 385 (DB). In that case also, the Metropolitan Magistrate
had given a NOC for renewal of the passport ―as per Rules‖. The Division
Bench examined the same and concluded that since no period was
mentioned in the said order, the passport was required to be renewed for a
period of one year in terms of the notification dated 25.08.1993.
7. The Court declined to accept the interpretation that even in absence of
the specific period being mentioned in the order of the Trial Court indicating
its no objection, the same must be construed to be a full term as provided in
the Passport Rules, 1980. The Court expressly held ―though it is open to the
applicant to seek further extension, there is no logic in contending that in
the absence of fixation of any time limit by the court it has to be presumed
that the court has allowed issuance of the passport for full validity period.‖
8. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that in each case,
where the Trial Court issues a No Objection Certificate stating that the
passport be issued as per Rules must be construed that the passport be issued
for the full term, cannot be accepted.
9. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the notification dated
25.08.1993, which is set out below:
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
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) of section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of
1967) and in supersession of the 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 the 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.
[No.VI/401/37/79]
L.K. PONAPPA,
Jt. Secy. (CPV)‖
10. It is apparent from the language of the notification dated 25.08.1993 -
which is not under challenge in these proceedings - that if no period for
issue of the passport or approval is specified, the passport would be issued
for a period of one year. Admittedly, the Passport Rules, 1980 provide that
the period of validity of a passport shall be ten years. The reference to Rules
by the Trial Court should in normal circumstances also mean the same as
held by the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of
India & Ors.: Civil Writ Petition No.361/2014, decided on 13.03.2014.
However, the decision in Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India & Anr.:
2016 (154) DRJ 385 (DB) is clear in this regard. Thus, it would be
necessary for the applicant to seek orders for expressly indicating the period
for which a passport can be issued. In view of the above, the present
petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the
concerned Court for necessary clarification. In the event, the Trial Court
indicates that it has no objection for issuance of the passport for the full term
as provided under the Passport Rules, 1980, the petitioner would be at
liberty to make a fresh application for renewal of the passport and it would
be processed, accordingly.
11. The pending application is also disposed of.
12. Order dasti.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
OCTOBER 08, 2018
MK
