Kerala High Court
Prince Varghese Through Power Of ... vs Union Of India on 31 January, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 66 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRINCE VARGHESE
THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE,
R/O ATTIKULATH HOUSE, COMPANY ROAD,
PANAYAKADAVV, CHENGAMANAD PO,
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER AL VARGHESE,
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O LONAPPAN,
ATTIKULATHU OTTUKAMBANI ROAD,
CHENGAMANAD PO, ERNAKULAM - 683578.
BY ADVS.
E.ADITHYAN
MEERA RAMESH
SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL
MRUDULA MOHAN
NESAMUDHEEN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SO(DB),
74B SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REGIONAL,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682036.
3 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR (PO), COCHIN - 682036.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.S.MANU, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.66 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2024
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1024 of 2018 of
the Chengamanad Police Station alleging commission of
offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34
IPC. The said case is currently pending before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva as C.C.No.1283 of
2018. The petitioner is the holder of Passport No.Z7318174
and it is a valid Passport. The petitioner's bail order had no
travel restrictions and the old Passport is still valid.
2. When the petitioner went to renew his Passport
since the old one's pages got over, he was served with Ext.P1
notice. Upon reply by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent served
with Ext.P3 notice, directing him to obtain permission from the
Court in the absence of disposal of the case. The petitioner,
who is currently abroad, cannot travel to India. Obtaining
permission from the trial court requires the petitioner to be
personally present in Court by filing an affidavit. However,
currently, the petitioner is abroad. Taking leave and coming to
India might result in losing the job of the petitioner, contends
the Counsel for the petitioner.
3. Deputy Solicitor General of India entered
appearance and resisted the writ petition. A Statement has
been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that the
petitioner applied for renewal of Passport under the Tatkal
Scheme. At the time of the application for renewal, a criminal
case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner did
not divulge the fact or details of the criminal case. Therefore,
notice has been issued to the petitioner.
4. Now, the petitioner has to surrender the said
Passport. Thereafter, the petitioner can obtain an order from
the criminal court for permission to go abroad. On the basis of
the order obtained from the competent criminal court, the
petitioner's application for renewal can then be considered,
contended the Deputy Solicitor General of India.
5. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that now the
petitioner is working in Singapore and he has to come back.
Without a valid Passport, the petitioner's travel may not be
possible. The Deputy Solicitor General of India pointed out that
the petitioner can apply for an Emergency Certificate from the
High Commission of India, Singapore and with that, the
petitioner can travel to India.
Taking into consideration the afore facts, the writ petition
is disposed of directing the petitioner to obtain Emergency
Certificate from the High Commission, Singapore and obtain
an order from the jurisdictional criminal court where crime
registered against the petitioner is pending. If the petitioner
then surrenders the existing Passport and makes an
application for a fresh Passport along with the order of the
criminal court, the 3rd respondent-Regional Passport Officer
shall consider the application and take a decision thereon
expeditiously, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is
employed in Singapore and is coming to India solely for the
purpose of renewal of Passport.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 66/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
04.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE
AND THE FOLLOW UP NOTICE FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 10.09.2023 ALONG WITH
ITS TRAILING MAIL DATED 29.10.2023
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
