Muhammed Akhiludheen vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 502 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/17TH POUSHA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.16027 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

              MUHAMMED AKHILUDHEEN,
              AGED 25 YEARS,
              S/O. CHEKKUNNI, KOTTAMAL,
              THANDUPURAKKALKOTTAMMAL HOUSE, WANDOOR,
              PORUR P O, MALAPPURAM-679339.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
              SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
              SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
              SRI.U.M.HASSAN
              SMT.P.PARVATHY
              SMT.SURYA P SHAJI
              SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED
              SHRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H.
              SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY

RESPONDENTS:

     1        UNION OF INDIA,
              MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              ROOM NO.149 A, SOUTH BLOCK,
              NEW DELHI-110011.

     2        CONSULAR GENERAL OF INDIA,
              DUBAI(UAE), AL HAMRIYA DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE,
              P.O. BOX 737, DUBAI, UAE.

              R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.16027/2020
                                      :2:




                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No.16027 of 2020

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               Dated this the 7th day of January, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

The petitioner, who is employed in Dubai, has filed

this writ petition seeking to command the respondents to

renew/reissue his passport bearing No.R3913371.

2. The petitioner states that he was implicated in

Crime No.284/2016 of Wandoor Police Station for offences

punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 353 read with

Section 34 IPC. In the year 2016, the petitioner filed CMP

No.1478/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's

Court-II, Perinthalmanna seeking NOC for issuance of

passport, for employment purpose. The Magistrate passed

Ext.P2 order permitting the petitioner to apply for passport. WPC No.16027/2020

3. Accordingly, Ext.P1 passport was issued to the

petitioner. The validity of the passport was for a period of one

year, up to 19.10.2018. The petitioner went to Dubai and he

is working there as a Restaurant Coffee Shop Manager. The

petitioner contends that before the expiry of the period of

Ext.P1 passport, he submitted Ext.P3 application for renewal

of passport on 09.09.2018 to the BLS International, which is

an exclusive trusted partner to the Embassy of India in Dubai.

The petitioner submits that the BLS authorities required him

to approach Consulate General of India for renewal of

passport.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the office of the

Consulate General of India informed the petitioner that his

application cannot be considered since a criminal case is

pending against him before the Magistrate's Court,

Perinthalmanna. It is the further case of the petitioner that

when he approached the 2nd respondent-Consulate General

of India, he was required to submit a fresh application for

renewal of the passport and accordingly the petitioner WPC No.16027/2020

submitted Ext.P4 application on 11.11.2018.

5. The petitioner states that the respondents are not

allowing his application for renewal of passport for the reason

that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.284/2016 of

Wandoor Police Station. The petitioner is therefore unable to

return to India since his passport is expired. The respondents

are compellable to renew the passport of the petitioner,

without insisting for further orders from the Magistrate's Court.

6. The Assistant Solicitor General of India filed a

statement on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Paragraphs 2

to 4 of the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2

read as follows:-

"2. It is humbly submitted that Mr.Mohammed Akhiludheen Kottammal obtained a short validity passport No.R3913371 from the Regional Passport Office, Malappuram, valid from 20.10.2017 to 19.10.2018 and as per the records available in passport database maintained by the Ministry of External Affairs, the applicant has not submitted any passport application with CGI, Dubai till date.

3. It is further stated that there is remark entry being reflected in passport database against the above said passport which appears to be entered by RPO, Malappuram in 2017. The contents of the remarks are as under: 'criminal case pending, court WPC No.16027/2020

order to issue passport for one year on file. Passport cannot be reissued without further order from court.'

4. It is humbly submitted that there are no records available in the answering respondent's office to show that the petitioner approached BLS and in turn he was channelized to the answering respondent's office."

7. The learned Assistant Solicitor General argued that

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides that

subject to other provisions of the Act, the passport authority

shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document, if

proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal

court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashok

Khanna v. Central Bureau of Investigation [265 (2019)

DLT 614] wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that since

there is a separate provision for renewal of passport, Section

6 of the Passports Act, 1967 will not apply and that renewal of

passports cannot be based on any of the eventualities WPC No.16027/2020

specified in Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. The

learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka in WP(C) No.9141/2020, wherein the

High Court held that for renewal of passport, there is no

requirement for obtaining permission from the jurisdictional

Magistrate.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the

respondents.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that Ext.P1 passport was issued to him on the

basis of Ext.P2 order of the Magistrate's Court before which

the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

Once the Magistrate's Court has granted permission to the

petitioner for making an application for passport, renewal of

the passport so obtained need not require a court order.

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act 1967, will not apply in

cases of renewal of passports, as held by various High

Courts.

WPC No.16027/2020

11. I do not find the judgments of the Hon'ble High

Courts of Delhi and Karnataka will be of much help to the

petitioner because, the specific case of the respondents is

that their database does not show that the applicant has

made any application for renewal of passport before the 2 nd

respondent-Consulate General of India. There are no

records available in the office of the respondents to show that

the petitioner approached BLS International and he was

channelised to the office of the Consulate General of India.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied

on Ext.P3 document to show that an application was

submitted to the BLS in time and there is an endorsement in

Ext.P3. When the respondents specifically contended that no

application submitted by the petitioner was received by the

respondents and the data base of the respondents do not

show submission of any such application, it will not be proper

or safe to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has

submitted Ext.P3 application in the office of the 2 nd

respondent in time. This Court therefore do not find any WPC No.16027/2020

reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondents.

13. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is

not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition.

However, I note that in the statement filed by the

respondents, the respondents have suggested that the

petitioner may submit an application for emergency certificate

with the 2nd respondent along with his previous passport and

in such case, the petitioner would be issued emergency

certificate to return to India. Once the petitioner comes to

India on emergency certificate, the petitioner can make an

application for issuance of a fresh passport.

Leaving open such a remedy and recourse to the

petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/04.01.2021 WPC No.16027/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PASSPORT OF PETITIONER BEARING NUMBER R 3913371.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.08.2017 IN CMP 1478/2017 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, PERINTHALMANNA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE PASSPORT ON 9.09.2018

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PASSPORT DATED 11.11.2018.