Ravi Kumar Panasa vs Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1914 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.11674 OF 2022


                               ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ

of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in failing to

issue fresh passport bearing No.Z6316571 belonging to the petitioner

herein for a period of ten years, for which he is eligible as directed by

the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in

Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2020 in S.C.No.638 of 2018 vide order dt.27.10.2020

and as per Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980, as illegal and

arbitrary and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to extend the

validity period of the new passport for a further period of 9 years, i.e.,

until 23.12.2031 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner claims to be an accomplished and reputed filmmaker and

media entrepreneur and is the Managing Director of R.K. Media. A

criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was W.P.No.11674 of 2022

arrayed as accused No.8 in Crime No.52 of 2015 on the file of the SHO,

Central Crime Station Police Station, D.D., Hyderabad for the offences

under Sections 20, 21 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 which is pending trial vide

S.C. No.638 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner was enlarged on bail vide

orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2015 by the II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3. While matter stood thus, the petitioner's passport bearing

No.J0250792 issued on 05.08.2010 was set to expire on 04.08.2020 and

therefore, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for renewal of his

passport and submitted an application dt.04.08.2020. While considering

the application of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent sought clarification

from the petitioner in respect of the criminal case pending against him.

The petitioner submitted a representation dt.26.08.2020 clarifying to the

2nd respondent, that the above crime was falsely foisted against him and

pendency of the same is nowhere conclusive that he is guilty of the

alleged crime. He also submitted that till he is found guilty, he is to be

considered as innocent and that there were no travel restrictions imposed W.P.No.11674 of 2022

on him by the Court. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed an

order dt.18.09.2020 rejecting the request made by the petitioner for

renewal of his passport citing adverse police verification report, wherein

the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.52 of 2015 in S.C.No.638

of 2018 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

was stated. The 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to approach the

Court where the above case is pending to obtain permission to travel

abroad and in the event the Court accords such permission, the 2nd

respondent can reconsider the application dt.04.08.2020.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2020 in

S.C.No.638 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the Court vide orders dt.27.10.2020

directed the 2nd respondent to renew the petitioner's passport bearing

No.J0250792 for the eligible period on the basis that merely because a

criminal case is pending, the petitioner cannot be denied his right to

renew his passport. Consequently, the petitioner was issued a new

passport bearing No.Z5981727 for the period from 17.11.2020 to

16.11.2021. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the W.P.No.11674 of 2022

passport only for one year and in not issuing the passport for a period of

10 years, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Murali Manohar, has

drawn the attention of this Court to the order of the Sessions Judge in

Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2020 in S.C.No.638 of 2018, wherein it was held that

the petitioner is entitled to renewal of the passport for the period he is

eligible if his application is otherwise in order. He has also drawn the

attention of this Court to Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, wherein it

is provided that an ordinary passport for persons other than children

below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages

shall be in force for a period of 10 years from the date of its issue. He

further refers to Notification in G.S.R. 570(E) dt.25.08.1993 issued by

the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India wherein it is

provided that 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, are exempted from the

operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6

of the Passports Act subject to the certain conditions, namely, the W.P.No.11674 of 2022

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; (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 of one

year. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the

Court order specifically mentions that passport shall be renewed to the

period the petitioner is eligible, respondent No.2 ought to have issued

the passport for the entire period of 10 years. He further places reliance

upon the judgments of Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra K.

Ambwani Vs. Union of India and others1 and also in the case of

Samip Nitin Ranjani Vs. Union of India2.

6. Smt. B.Kavita Yadav, learned counsel representing Sri

Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General

appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, opposed the

contentions of the petitioner and relying upon the contentions raised in

the counter-affidavit, submitted that in the Gazette Notification vide

GSR 570(E) dt.25.08.1993, it is mentioned that if no period either for

2014 SCC OnLine Bom 356

2016 SCC OnLine Bom 14539 W.P.No.11674 of 2022

the issue of passport or for the travel abroad is specified in the order of

the Court before which the criminal case is pending, the passport shall

be issued for a period of one year only and accordingly the passport of

the petitioner bearing No.Z6316571 dt.24.12.2021 was issued with

validity up to 23.12.2022. Therefore, according to her, there is no merit

in the case of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that where there is criminal case pending against an Indian

citizen who is seeking issuance or renewal of passport, the Government

of India Notification in GSR 570(E) dt.25.08.1993 is applicable.

Accordingly, the petitioner has approached the criminal Court by filing

Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2020 and the criminal Court has allowed the

Crl.M.P. by directing renewal of passport only for the period the

petitioner is eligible. As per the Passport Act and the Rules framed

thereunder, a citizen is entitled for issuance of an ordinary passport for a

period of 10 years and thereafter, the passport holder will have to make

appropriate application for renewal of the passport which is again

extendable for a further period of 10 years. The Sessions Judge in the

order dt.27.10.2020 has observed that pendency of criminal case against W.P.No.11674 of 2022

the petitioner cannot be a ground for denying his right to renew his

passport. However, it is observed that it should be given only for the

period he is eligible. (emphasis supplied by this Court). The usage of

word 'eligible connotes that the extension may be for regular period of

10 years as provided in the rules. The judgments on which the petitioner

has placed reliance upon are on similar set of facts.

8. In all of those cases, the petitioners therein were frequent

travellers and the relevant criminal Court therein had directed for

renewal of passport in accordance with the prescribed Rules. As the

prescribed Rules permit issuance of passport for 10 years, the Courts

have held in favour of the petitioners therein. Therefore, in the case

before this Court, as the language used by the Magistrate/Judge is

'eligible', the petitioner is also eligible to be issued passport for a period

of 10 years.

9. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct

the respondents to issue the passport for a period of 10 years under

Section 10 of the Passports Act.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

W.P.No.11674 of 2022

11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Dt. 18.04.2022 Svv