Madhya Pradesh High Court
Muffazzal Rassiwala vs Union Of India on 31 October, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 31 st OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17789 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MUFFAZZAL RASSIWALA S/O HATIM ALI
RASSIWALA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SURGEON 73 NEW SAIFY NAGAR
BEHIND DIGAMBER SCHOOL DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MURTAZA RASSIWALA S/O HATIM ALI
RASSIWALA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SURGEON 73, NEW SAIFY NAGAR,
BEHIND DIGAMBER SCHOOL, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. HATIM ALI RASSIWALA S/O LATE SHRI ABDUL
HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 73, NEW SAIFY NAGAR, BEHIND
DIGAMBER SCHOOL, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI LUCKY JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
ALONGWITH SHRI ANKIT MORE- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER).
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 23 D JANPATH RD. RAJPATH
AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE MINISTRY OF
EXTER N AL PASSPORT OFFICE, ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND 2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 02-11-2023
16:11:48
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a direction to the respondents to issue passport of the petitioner for
regular prescribed period of 10 years.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioners applied for renewal of their
passport before the respondent authority. The respondent No.2 renewed the
passport of the petitioners for a period of one year from 06.09.2021 to
05.09.2022, then from 04.01.2023 to 03.01.2024 respectively.
3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 sent an email to the respondents to renew
the passport for a period of 10 years stating that they are surgeons and they
have to travel abroad to attend academic training sessions for robotic surgery.
The petitioner No.3 vide email dated 05.04.2023 requested the respondent
authority to issue renewal of their passport for a period of 10 years. It is
contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the
respondents in renewing the passport for a period of one year is contrary to
provisions of Section 7 of the Passport Act, 1967 (herein after referred to as the
Act). In support of his submission they have placed reliance on the judgment
passed by coordinate bench in the case of 'Hardik Shah v. Union of India &
Another' in W.P No. 5692/2020 dated 07.12.2021 and also order passed by
coordinate bench dated 14.08.2023 in W.P No.15823/2023 'Abuzar Rangwala
v. Union of India and Another' and also judgment passed by Madras High
Court in the case of 'Kartik P. Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport
Officer, Chennai' W.P No.332/2023 decided on 28.02.2022. Counsel for the
petitioner also relied on a judgment passed by co-ordinate bench in the case of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 02-11-2023
16:11:48
'Ashish Singh Chouhan v. Union of India and Another' passed in W.P
No.27436/2022 and submits that the aforesaid notification dated 25.08.1993 has
been considered in the said judgment.
4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
respondents have rightly passed the order of renewal of passport of the
petitioner for a period of one year. The petitioners are facing criminal cases
before the trial Court and the trial Court vide orders dated 27.04.2022,
13.06.2022 and 21.11.2022 allowed the application for renewal of passport with
the direction that without permission of the Court the petitioner will not travel
abroad. The Court did not mention the period of passport. Thereafter, on
03.08.2022, 13.12.2022 and 04.01.2023 the petitioners had applied for renewal
of passport and their passport has been renewed for a period of one year.
5. The respondents have relied on a notification dated 25.08.1993 issued
by the Govt. of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (a) of
Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967. He referred to Clause (a) (i) and (ii) of
the aforesaid notification and submitted that in a case where the applicant is
facing a case in a Criminal Court of India and where the Court has passed order
for renewal of the passport but the period of renewal of passport is not
specified then the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. The
relevant part of the notification read as under:-
G.S.R, 570 (E)---"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section
22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.
G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of
the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts
citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and
who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from
India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of
Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 02-11-2023
16:11:48
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued--
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court
specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is
specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year;"
The provisions of Section 22 of the Act is also reproduced as under:-
"Section 22. Power to exempt- Where the Central Government is of the opinion that
it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the
Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the
notification,-(a) exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any
of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, and (b) as often as may be,
cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or
class of persons to the operation of such provisions."
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
Section 22 it is manifest that the Central Government has been conferred
extraordinary powers in the public interest to prescribe conditions by issuance
of gazette notification and exempt any person or class of persons from
operation of all or any provisions of the Act or Rules made there under and as
often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like
notification the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions.
7. From the reading of clause (a) (i) and (ii) of notification (Annexure R-
11) dated 25.08.1993 it is clear that the Passport shall be issued to every citizen-
for the period specified in the order of the Court where applicant is facing a
criminal case and if the Court has specified a period for which the passport has
to be issued or if no period is prescribed in Court order either for the issue of
passport or for to travel abroad, the passport shall be issued for a period of
one year.
8. Admittedly, in the present case, the criminal court has not specified
any period for the passport or for to travel abroad. Thus, in view of the
aforesaid provisions, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 02-11-2023
16:11:48
respondents renewing the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year.
The judgments relied by the petitioner would not render any assistance in the
present case. In the case of 'Hardik Shah v. Union of India & Another'
(supra) this Court did not consider the statutory notification dated 25.08.1993.
The said case was relating to impounding of passport and in that case the Court
has directed for issuance of regular passport for a period of ten years. There is
no consideration of the notification Annexure R-11 which is relied in the present
case. Similarly, in the case of 'Abuzar Rangwala v. Union of India and
Another' (supra) also coordinate bench has not considered the aforesaid
statutory notification while directing for the renewal of passport of the
petitioner. In the case of 'Kartik P. Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport
Officer, Chennai', the Madras High Court has not considered the provisions
of Section 22 and the Gazette notification dated 26.08.1993 and its impact on
renewal of passport. The judgment in the case of 'Ashish Singh Chouhan v.
Union of India and Another' (supra), would also not render any assistance to
the case of the petitioner. In the said case the Court has considered the
notification dated 25.08.1993 and the provisions of Section 6 (2)(e) and (f)
which reads as under:-
"Section 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.-
(2) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a
passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of subsection (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-
(a)xxxxx xxxxx (b) xxxx xxxxx (c) xxxx xxx (d) xxxx xxxx
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the
date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral
turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years:
(f) that proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to have committed by the applicant are
pending before a criminal court in India".
Considering the aforesaid provisions in para 11 the Court held that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 02-11-2023
16:11:48
notification dated 25.08.1993 relates to provision of clause (f) subsection (2) of
Section 6, whereas the case of the petitioner falls under the purview of clause
(e) of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 therefore, the
notification dated 25.08.1993 has no application in the said case. In the present
case, criminal cases are pending against the petitioners and therefore, the
notification covers the cases of the petitioners which falls under clause (f) of
subsection (2) of Section 6 and therefore, the notification dated 25.08.2023
would be applicable in the present case.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition sens merit because
admittedly the petitioners are facing criminal case and the criminal Court has not
specified any period for renewal of passport and for travel to abroad and in that
situation, sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of gazette notification dated 25.08.1993
would come into play and the respondents have rightly renewed the passport of
the petitioners for a period of one year.
Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned actions of the
respondents. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
akanksha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 02-11-2023
16:11:48
