Karnataka High Court
Sri Pradeep Kumar T G @ Pradeep ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.21150 OF 2021 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR T. G. @ PRADEEP GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O SRI. T. K.GOPALAPPA,
RESIDING AT 1886, LAKSHMI NILAYA,
CHOWDAPPA LAYOUT, THANISANDRA,
SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KOTHANUR POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 077.
2. THE PASS PORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF PASSPORT,
8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R2 TO RE-ISSUE THE PETITIONERS PASSPORT NO S6320639 BY
CONSIDERING HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 4.1.2021 MADE
TO R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAMI IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The short grievance of the petitioner is against non-
consideration of his representation dated 04.01.2021 at
Annexure-A, wherein he has sought for re-issuance of the
subject Passport. Learned counsel for the petitioner points
out that whatever objection the Passport Officer has stated in
the Endorsement now pales into significance in view of his
client succeeding in a partition suit in O.S.No.2769/2014
culminating into a judgment & decree in his favour; the
learned counsel submits that even the allegations of offence
made against him also stand answered by the observations
therein.
2. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned CGC Mr. Aditya Singh appearing for respondent No.2
oppose the writ petition contending that the concept of
renewal or reissue of Passport is alien to the Passport Act
1967, and therefore, petitioner cannot be granted relief at the
hands of Writ Court; they make submission in justification of
the impugned order and seek dismissal of the Writ Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined
to grant a limited relief to the petitioner as under and for the
following reasons:
i) The Apex Court in MENAKA GANDHI Vs. UNION
OF INDIA, AIR 1978 SC 597, has observed that the right to
travel abroad is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed
inter alia under both the Article 19 & Article 21 of
Constitution of India and therefore, when a citizen applies for
the grant of travel documents, his claim needs to be
considered by the Competent Authorities keeping this in
mind; the contention of respondents that the representation
of the kind cannot be considered therefore, does not merit
acceptance.
ii) Whatever insignificant words like 're-issue',
'renewal' etc, need not be given their dictionary meaning
keeping the common sense in the cold storage; if grievance of
the petitioner can otherwise be ascertained, redressal in
accordance with law needs to be granted; the bad usage of
language should not come as a barrier to the accomplishing
public function enjoined by law.
In the above circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed
to consider the request of the petitioner for the re-issue,
renewal or fresh issuance of Passport as the case may be,
should he comply with all the requirement, on being
indicated.
Time for compliance is eight weeks from the date the
petitioner makes appropriate application supported by
necessary documents & prescribed payment.
All contentions are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
