Binil vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 7309 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 16622 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

            BINIL,
            AGED 41 YEARS
            S/O.RAPHEL, ELAVUNKAL HOUSE, KAYAPPILLY LANE,
            ELAMAKKARA.P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682026

            BY ADVS.
            C.A.CHACKO
            C.M.CHARISMA
            BABU V.P.
            CHRISTINA ANTONY
            SALMA DILEEP
            REMYA V.A.



RESPONDENTS:

    1       UNION OF INDIA,
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
            MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI ., PIN - 110001

    2       THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
            REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR.P.O., KOCHI
            -682036., PIN - 682036

            BY ADV S.MANU




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16622 OF 2023             2




             Dated this the 27th day of June, 2023

                          JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the second

respondent to consider Ext.P3 application submitted by

the petitioner to reissue a passport in his favour.

2. The petitioner's case is that, he is the holder of

Ext.P1 passport, which was issued by the second

respondent having a validity till 22.6.2024. The

petitioner has secured an employment in Malta. Since

Ext.P1 passport was damaged, he submitted Ext.P3

application before the second respondent, on 9.5.2023, to

re-issue the passport with an extended validity. But, the

second respondent has not reissued the passport. On

enquiry, the petitioner has learnt that his passport

application has not been processed, in view of an enquiry

initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI),

Zonal Unit, Bangalore. The petitioner contacted the said

office and has learnt that no enquiry is pending. The

petitioner has to join for his employment, immediately.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has

filed a statement on behalf of the second respondent,

inter alia, contending that, the petitioner had on 6.1.2021

applied to re-issue Ext.P1 passport. While the application

was pending consideration, the second respondent

received a caution entry from the Deputy Director, DRI,

stating that the petitioner is involved in gold smuggling.

Even though the respondents had issued three letters to

the Deputy Director, DRI, no response is received till

date. While the re-issue application was pending

consideration, the petitioner preferred another

application under Tatkal Scheme. The petitioner had

suppressed the fact of the earlier application. Even

though the petitioner was directed to approach the main

office, he has not turned up. In the above circumstances,

the petitioner has not been issued with a passport.

4. Heard; Sri.Chacko C.A., the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Manu.S. the learned

Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the

respondents.

5. Having considered the pleadings and materials

on record, I find that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3

application before the second respondent as early as on

9.5.2023, to re-issue his passport,

6. The respondents have taken the stand that they

have received a caution entry from the DRI, as against

the petitioner. Nevertheless, they have not received any

further response from the DRI, despite issuing three

letters.

7. On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials

on record, I am of the definite view that the petitioner

cannot be denied a passport on a caution entry made by

the DRI, without any cogent materials. Indisputably,

despite three letters being sent to the DRI, there is no

response. Thus, it is to be assumed that there are no

proceedings pending against the petitioner.

8. It is trite; the right to travel abroad is a

fundamental right.

9. In the above background, I am of the definite view

that the second respondent is to be directed to re-issue

the passport to the petitioner, after obtaining an

undertaking from him that he would surrender the

passport as and when directed by the second respondent

and he would make himself available before the DRI, as

and when directed. The above course would give a

quietus to the writ petition and the petitioner would be in

a position to join his employment.

Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows:-

(i) The second respondent is directed to re-issue the

passport to the petitioner, as sought for in Ext.P3

application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously

as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the

judgment, after obtaining an undertaking from the

petitioner for the purpose already stated above.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm27/6/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16622/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF PASSPORT OF PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/3/2023 ISSUED TO HIGH COMMISSION OF MALTA

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 9/5/2023 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER