Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramani vs Union Of India on 28 October, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
WP No. 19617 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 19617 OF 2022 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/A NO.57/6, F-102,
7TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY
PADMAVATHI B K REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KARNATAKA
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA,
BENGALURU, LALBAGH,
NO.45, PRESTIGE LIBRA,
NEAR URVASI THEATER,
-2-
WP No. 19617 of 2022
LALBAGH MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GRANTING OFFICER.
3. STATE BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION,
VYALIKAVAL,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMAR M N., CGC FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND QUASH THE REPLY/ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATE 05/07/2022 FOR NON-RENEWAL OF
PETITIONERS PASSPORT VIDE APPLICATION REFERENCE
NUMBER (ARN) AND FILE UNDER ANNEXURE - D AND ALSO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/09/2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT FOR CLOSURE OF HER APPLICATION AND ALSO
FOR FORFEITING THE RENEWAL FEE VIDE ANNEXURE - G AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
a communication dated 05.07.2022 by which, the
application of the petitioner to re-issue the passport is
turned down.
WP No. 19617 of 2022
2. Heard the learned counsel
Sri M. Aswathanarayana Reddy appearing for the
petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel Sri
Kumar M.N., representing respondents No.1 and 2 and
learned Additional Government Advocate Sri M.Vinod
Kumar, representing respondent No.3.
3. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court
in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings are
as follows:
The petitioner was issued a passport on 11.05.2012.
During subsistence of the period of validity of the
passport, the petitioner becomes an accused in a Crime
registered by her daughter-in-law in Crime No.101/2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 335,
323, 324 and 354 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Registration of
crime comes to be challenged before this Court in
Crl.P.No.4777/2017 and an interim order of stay is
granted in the said order, which stalled further
WP No. 19617 of 2022
investigation at the hands of the Investigating Officer.
This Court by an order dated 10.08.2021, allowed the said
criminal petition in-part, only insofar it pertains to the
husband of the complainant and dismissed the criminal
petition insofar as it concerns petitioners No.2, 3 and 4
therein. Petitioner No.2 therein is the petitioner in the
subject petition. The said finding rendered by this Court
on 10.08.2021 has become final. The petitioner then, files
an application before the RPO- Regional Passport Officer
seeking renewal/re-issuance of a passport, which is denied
by a impugned communication dated 05.07.2022.
The said denial of renewal of passport is what drives the
petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that pendency of a criminal case should not
come in the way of renewal/re-issuance of passport as the
case may be and would place reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi
WP No. 19617 of 2022
Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in SC 2021 9-178, which is followed by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganni
Bhaskara Rao Vs. Union of India & Another reported
in AIR Online 2022 AP 1463 to buttress his submission,
that pendency of a criminal case would not come in the
way of re-issuing the passport.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2 would take this Court to the
documents appended to contend that re-issuance or
renewal of a passport can be denied in terms of Section
6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 ('the Act' for short),
which clearly generates a bar on such re-issuance/renewal
of a passport and would submit that in extreme cases, an
Office Memorandum issued on 10.10.2019, which
elaborates GSR 570(E) issued on 25.08.1993 regarding
issuance of passport in the cases where criminal cases are
pending against them would cover the issue. He would
WP No. 19617 of 2022
further submit that, it is only under the said Office
Memorandum, the petitioner can get a right of such
consideration.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
The issue revolves around a narrow compass. The only
issue is, whether the Regional Passport Officer could have
denied re-issuance/renewal of the passport to the
petitioner in the facts of the case.
8. The communication dated 05.07.2022 is a format
that is communicated online, which does not contain any
reason for such denial. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner is facing criminal proceedings in Crime
No.101/2017 and this Court has rejected the petition
seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime
WP No. 19617 of 2022
No.101/2017 in terms of the order dated 10.08.2021.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner
is pending consideration.
9. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act would read as follows;
"Section 6 : Refusal of passports, travel
documents. etc.:
(2) : Subject to the other provisions of this
Act, the passport authority shall
refuse to issue a passport or travel
document for visiting any foreign
country under clause (c) of sub-
section (2) of section 5 on any one or
more of the following grounds, and
on no other ground, namely: -
(a) to (e) xxxxxx
(f): that proceedings in respect of
an offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant are
pending before a criminal court in
India."
In terms of afore-quoted provision, pendency of a
criminal case can pose as an impediment for re-issuance
or renewal of passport in terms of the Act. It is owing to
WP No. 19617 of 2022
these circumstances, carving out certain exceptions, the
Office Memorandum is issued in GSR 570(E), on
25.08.1993, regarding issuance of passport to the
applicants who have pending criminal cases against them,
at the time of making an application. It is this Office
Memorandum that is elaborated in the Office Memorandum
dated 10.10.2019. The impugned communication issued
to the petitioner rejecting the application seeking issuance
of a passport reads as follows:
"Subject: File Closure Alert for Passport Application
submitted with File No.BN1074370800522
Dear Applicant,
Please refer to the Passport application with File
Number BN1074370800522 submitted at the
Passport Seva Kendra (PSK) Bengaluru, Lalbagh in
respect of Shri/Smt/Kumari RAMANI ANANDAN.
Please note that you have not yet submitted the
required supporting document(s) as asked during
your visit to the PSK Bengaluru, Lalbagh on 05-Jul-
2022 which was more than 60 days ago.
WP No. 19617 of 2022
You are requested to schedule an appointment
before 04-Oct-2022 and report in person at PSK
Bengaluru, Lalbagh along with the desired
document(s) failing which it will be presumed that
you are not able to furnish the required supporting
document(s). This will result into permanent closure
of your application file and the fee submitted shall be
forfeited."
The afore-quoted communication does not anywhere
refer to the office memorandum either of 1993 or 2019,
which is issued and is subsisting for the specific purpose
and the said purpose found in those office memorandums,
is applicable to the case on hand.
10. Therefore, the respondents are required to
reconsider the application of the petitioner strictly in
consonance with the Office Memorandum GSR 570(E)
dated 25.08.1993 as elaborated in the Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019. The petitioner is 72
years old and is suffering from certain ailments for which
surgery is required to be performed and the petitioner
- 10 -
WP No. 19617 of 2022
seeks to get it performed at the United States. The
application is filed in that light. Therefore, the authority is
required to consider the application as expeditiously as
possible.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
I. The Petition is allowed in-part.
II. The order dated 05.07.2022 passed by
respondent No.2 vide Annexure - D, stands
quashed.
III. The application submitted by the petitioner for
re-issuance of a passport shall be considered in
strict consonance with GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993 as elaborated in the Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within
fortnight from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
- 11 -
WP No. 19617 of 2022
It is needless to observe that if documents and
co-operation are sought from the petitioner, the same
shall be extended to respondent No.2.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PN
