Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Muhammed Rafsal on 12 August, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1765 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.2723 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU BHAVAN, OPPOSITE
NATIONAL MUSEUM, RAJPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) & CHIEF PASSPORT
OFFICER
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PSP DIVISION,
PATIALA HOUSE, ANNEXE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN
- 110001
3 THE PASSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036
BY ADV SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 IN THE WRIT
PETITION:
1 MUHAMMED RAFSAL
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. EBRAHIM KOKKARANIKKAL HASSAN, KOKKARANIKKAL
HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683556
2 THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, 5-B, CGO COMPLEX,
W.A.No.1765 of 2025
2
2025:KER:60821
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
3 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (NCB)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CGO COMPLEX, LODHI
ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
4 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF KERALA
STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
5 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIMES), SOUTH ZONE
CBCID HQ, INTERPOL LIAISON OFFICER, STATE POLICE
HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ
SHRI.IJAS MUHAMMED
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1765 of 2025
3
2025:KER:60821
AMIT RAWAL & P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
...............................................................
W.A.No.1765 of 2025
...............................................................
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V. Balakrishnan, J.
This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.
(C)No.2723 of 2025, aggrieved by the judgment dated
26.03.2025, allowing the writ petition.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the 1 st respondent
herein, seeking the following reliefs;
''i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for records leading to
Exhibits P10 and P15 orders and to quash the same;
ii. Issue writ of Mandamus directing 2nd and 3rd
respondents to renew the petitioner's passport;
iii. Declare that the inaction of the 2 nd and 3rd
respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request to renew
his passport is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of their statutory duties.''
3. Ext.P10 is an order passed by the 3 rd appellant, and
Ext.P15 is an order passed by the 2 nd appellant, in an appeal filed
against Ext.P10 order. By Exts. P10 and P15 orders, the
appellants rejected the request of the 1 st respondent seeking
renewal/re-issue of his passport on the ground that a Red Corner
2025:KER:60821
Notice, issued by the Interpol on the basis of certain proceedings
initiated in Qatar is in existence and that the 1 st respondent has
not obtained permission to travel abroad from the Magistrate
Court of Chalakudy and North Paravur, where criminal cases are
pending against him.
4. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated
26.03.2025, negated the contentions taken by the appellants and
allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to process
the application filed by the 1 st respondent for re-issuance of his
passport.
5. Heard Sri. T.C. Krishna, the learned Senior Panel
Counsel for the appellants and Sri. Shahid Aziz, the learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended
that, going by Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and
GSR dated 25.08.1993 bearing No. 570(E), issued by the
Government of India, a passport can be renewed or re-issued
only in cases where the court in which proceedings in respect of
the offences committed by the applicant is pending, permits him
to depart from India. According to him, in the instant case, as
per Exts.P1 and P2, even though the Magistrate Courts have
2025:KER:60821
granted permission to renew the passport, they have not
permitted the 1st respondent to depart from India and if so,
renewal cannot be granted.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent
supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are
no grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that as per
Exts.P1 and P2, even though the Magistrate Courts have granted
permission for renewal of the passport for specified periods, they
have interdicted the 1st respondent from travelling abroad,
without getting permission of these courts. He further submitted
that, it is only after getting the renewed passport, the 1 st
respondent can approach the court and seek permission to go
abroad, by giving the details of his passport, visa, travel
itinerary, etc.
8. The only question to be considered in this writ appeal
is whether the renewal/re-issue of the passport to the 1 st
respondent has to be denied only because of the fact that, in
Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the learned Magistrates have not
specifically granted permission to him to travel abroad. It is to
be seen that GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, issued by the
Government of India, in exercise of the powers under Section 22
2025:KER:60821
of the Passports Act, 1967, is an exemption to Section 6(2)(f) of
the Passports Act. It permits the citizens of India against whom
proceedings in criminal courts are pending to obtain/renew
passports if they produce orders from the court concerned,
permitting them to depart from India. The order also says that,
the court can specify the period for which the passport has to be
issued, and if no time is fixed, it shall be issued for a period of
one year.
9. In the instant case, it is to be seen that the 1 st
respondent herein has obtained favourable orders in the form of
Exts. P1 and P2 from the Magistrate Courts for renewal of his
passport. It is true that in those orders, the learned Magistrate
has not granted permission to the 1 st respondent to depart from
India. But on the other hand, what has been stated in these
orders is that, after getting the passport, the 1 st respondent has
to seek permission from these courts before going abroad. If so,
we are of the view that merely because there is no specific order
in Exts. P1 and P2 permitting the 1 st respondent to leave abroad,
the renewal of the passport of the 1 st respondent need not be
denied. This is because, we find that the purpose and intent for
which GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, has been issued is well
2025:KER:60821
served and protected by Exts. P1 and P2 orders.
The result of the afore discussions is that there is no error
or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge. Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
Dxy
