Anson John Kunnathoor vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1350 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
         TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 1362 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

             ANSON JOHN KUNNATHOOR,
             AGED 40 YEARS
             S/O.JOHNY, KUNNATHOOR, EAREPADAM ROAD, CHERIYA
             PALLAMTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683
             513.

             BY ADVS.
             S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
             K.J.SUNIL



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       UNION OF INDIA,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL
             AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

     2       REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
             COCHIN, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O.,
             COCHIN-682 036.

     3       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
             ALUVA RURAL, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA,
             ERNAKULAM-683 101.

             BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA



OTHER PRESENT:

             SR GP SRI JUSTINE JACOB


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1362 OF 2022
                                     2



                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned communication dated

17.12.2021, Ext.P3 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Cochin

rejecting the application No.CO3063270208921 for issuance of the

passport on account of the fact that the petitioner has not been able

to give the correct intimation as sought for by the communication

dated 12.5.2021, Ext.P1 but with a liberty to apply fresh with all the

documents and required fees anytime at the Passport Seva Kendra

by quoting the previous file number at the appropriate places in the

relevant forms. Petitioner during his prime age, was involved in a

crime case bearing No.373 of 2003 of North Paravur Police Station

under Section 302 of the IPC and faced the ordeal of trial in SC

No.452 of 2004 and resulted into acquittal. The complainant

preferred a criminal revision petition No.3012 of 2008. The

petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal revision

petition at the time of submission of the application for issuance of

the passport. When the intimation Ext.P1 dated 12.5.2021 was

received, the same was replied to the Superintendent of Police

Rural Aluva, Power House Junction, Aluva on 5.10.2021, Ext.P2. It WP(C) NO. 1362 OF 2022

has been contended that the aforementioned information did not

suffice the requirement of regional passport office, resulting into

impugned communication Ext.P3. It is next contended that as per

the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Passport Act which was

deliberated upon by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1342

of 2017 in the order dated 27.9.2021 titled as Vangala Kasturi

Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein an

application was submitted for direction to the passport authority to

give no objection for renewal of passport as the appeal preferred

against the sentence imposed in the proceedings registered under

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 whereby sentence was reduced to a period of

one year was pending. After noticing the provisions of the Act ie.,

6.2 (e) and (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority was

directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the

objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in the

Court. So far so the petitioner is concerned, he is not even an

accused as has been acquitted, pendency of the revision petition

without notice to the petitioner cannot be an act of the concealment

or bar for the passport authority to issue passport subject to certain

restrictions and conditions.

WP(C) NO. 1362 OF 2022

2. Smt. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the passport officer will consider the application afresh with the

particulars as of the pendency of the criminal revision petition and

dispose of in accordance with law by considering the judgment as

well as the provisions of the Act. Without expressing any

opinion, I allow the writ petition by issuing directions to the

respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh,

if submitted and if not, to be submitted within a period of one week

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and

consider the same in view of the observation herein above, dehore of

the order dated 17.12.2021 in accordance with law, preferably by

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either through

virtual or physical mode within a period of 15 days thereafter.

sd/-

sab                                              AMIT RAWAL

                                                   JUDGE
 WP(C) NO. 1362 OF 2022


                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1362/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1            TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER

REF.NO.SCN/310904561/21 DATED 12.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.10.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FILE CLOSURE LETTER REF.

NO.FCL/311905047/21 DATED 17.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 04.10.2022 SENT BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.2.