Nitish Bhardwaj vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5929 P&H

241   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                            CRM-M-20525-2022 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision : 02.06.2022

Nitish Bhardwaj                                                ..... Petitioner

                         versus

State of Haryana and another                                  .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
           ***
Present :- Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

            Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana.

            Ms. Shweta Nahata, Advocate
            for respondent No.2-UOI.
                   ****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the

impugned order dated 22.04.2022 wherein learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Gurugram has declined the application filed by the petitioner for

seeking permission for the renewal of the passport.

Reply by way of affidavit of Ashok Kumar, HPS, Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Old Gurugram filed by learned State counsel is

taken on record.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.323 dated 31.07.2021, under

Sections 376(2)(n), 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-

5, District Gurugram. He contends that petitioner is to appear in the exam,

the schedule of which is annexed as Annexure P-4 i.e. Exam Section

FAR. He contends that as per the requirement of the exam as given in

Annexure P-4 in the sub-heading of International Test Center Candidates,

candidates must bring to the appointment a valid, non-expired passport

1 of 3

CRM-M-20525-2022 (O&M) -2-

meeting specific country issuance criteria. Learned counsel submits that

the petitioner applied for permission to get the renewal of his passport by

way of filing the application which is appended as Annexure P-1 dated

18.04.2022. He submits that the Regional Passport Office vide its order

dated 4th May, 2022, declined to renew passport of the petitioner on the

ground that there is a criminal pending against the petitioner. He submits

that for the same, the petitioner was asked to produce the NOC from the

concerned Court for the renewal of his passport. He has submitted that he

duly filed application before the trial Court for granting the NOC,

however, the same was declined by the learned Court by virtue of passing

the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2022. He has submitted that the

petitioner at this stage, does not require renewal of passport for travelling

abroad. However, the same is required for appearing in the concerned

exam which would be held in India itself and the requirement of the

renewed passport is one of the essential conditions. He has relied upon

the judgments of this Court titled as Harpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

2010(9) RCR (Criminal) 498 and Harvinder Singh Bajwa Vs. Union of

India and others, 2021(1) RCR(Civil) 103 and hence, prayed for setting

aside the same and directing the passport authorities for renewal of his

passport.

Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly contended that

in view of GSR 570(E) dated 25th August, 1993, the petitioner is required

to get the NOC from the competent Court where the case is pending. She

has not disputed the judicial precedent relied upon by learned counsel for

the petitioner. She has fairly submitted that the Court concerned is

competent to grant NOC in accordance with GSR dated 25th August,

2 of 3

CRM-M-20525-2022 (O&M) -3-

1993.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.

Petitioner has to approach the same Court for the renewal of

the passport which is one of the essential conditions for appearing in the

same. As per the submissions made by counsel for the respondent, the

Court concerned is competent to grant the NOC. In view of the

submissions made and perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion

that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in declining

the request made by the petitioner and thus, impugned order dated

22nd April, 2022 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to approach the

Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram who would take

into consideration the submissions made by the parties and decide his

application afresh. It is being clarified that the renewal of the passport at

this stage is only for the purpose of requirement of the petitioner to

appear in the said exam. However, the same would not be deemed to the

grant of permission to the petitioner to travel abroad.

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court

concerned to decide his application within two weeks from today.

                                            ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
02.06.2022                                        JUDGE
m. sharma

             Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                   Yes/No




                                   3 of 3