Telangana High Court
Ravi Kumar Thota vs The Union Of India on 12 October, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.24743 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Subramaniam Daraboina, learned counsel representing
Sri Y. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anjali
Agarwal, learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing
for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the
respondent No.3 in not issuing passport to the petitioner for a period of
ten years as illegal and consequential direction to 3rd respondent to issue
passport for a period of ten years to the petitioner ignoring the
pendency of crime vide Cr.No.71 of 2020, dated 20.04.2020 pending on
the file of Nandigama Police Station, Cyberabad District. registered for
the offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 and 506 read with 34, 188,
269, 270 of IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (ED
Act), 51(B) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act).
3. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner has
completed graduation in Electronics and Communications Engineering
from JNTU, Hyderabad. The petitioner with an aspiration to leave
abroad for prosecuting higher studies, applied for issuance of passport
on his name. On the instructions of the passport authorities, on
16.12.2021, the petitioner had attended at the passport office for
document verification along with his passport application. The passport
authorities received his application and informed him to check status of
his passport in the Passport Seva Website. On 22.12.2021, when the
petitioner checked the status of his passport, it was found that police
verification report is not clear and the application is under review at the
regional office. On 30.12.2021, the petitioner received a notice from
the Regional Passport office, Hyderabad stating that the Competent
Authority refused the passport services to the petitioner under Section
5(2) (c) of the Passports Act, 1957 read with Section 6(2) (f) in view of
pendency of the aforesaid crime. Aggrieved by the action of the
Passport authorities, in rejecting his application for issuance of
passport, he filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.5526 of 2022 wherein the
this Court directed 3rd respondent to process his application and issue
passport without raising objection with regard to pendency of the
aforesaid crime subject to the petitioner fulfilling other conditions in the
relevant Act and Rules. In compliance of the said order/directions, 3rd
respondent had issued the passport to the petitioner for a period of one
year only i.e. from 13.04.2022 to 12.04.2023 instead of ten years as
sought by the petitioner, stating that if no period is mentioned in the
order, the passport will be issued for a period of one year only.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the
passport is not issued to him with validity of ten (10) years, the purpose
of leaving abroad for prosecuting his studies for a period of five (5)
years will not be served. The crime alleged against the petitioner is
based on false allegations and even if it is true, there is no conviction
and the investigation is not yet completed in the said crime. Therefore,
the Passport Authorities cannot refuse the issuance of the passport for a
period of ten years under the guise of pendency of the aforesaid crime
against the petitioner herein which is against the terms of gazette
Notification GSR No.570-E, dated 25.08.1993.
5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein is
an accused in the aforesaid crime in which investigation is still pending.
He is holder of Passport bearing No.V 9683084 and it is valid upto
12.04.2023. The petitioner wants to leave abroad to prosecute his
studies and he sought a direction to 3rd respondent to issue passport for
a period of ten years.
6. In view of same, it is relevant to note that Rule 12 of the
Passports Rules, 1980 deals with Duration of Passports or travel
documents. Rule 12(1) of the said Rules says 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. Therefore, 2nd respondent has to issue
Passport for a period of 10 years. However, in exercise of power
conferred under Section 22 (a) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in
supersession of the notification earlier issued, Union of India had issued
notification vide GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993.
7. Relevant clauses of the same are extracted below:
(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 of one year
(iii) If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period
less than one year, but does not specify the period validity
of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
(iv) If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the
passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of
travel abroad specified in the order."
8. Thus, as per the aforesaid Gazette, 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.
9. As stated above, vide aforesaid order dated 23.02.2022 in
W.P.No.5526 of 2022, this Court directed 3rd respondent-Passport
authority to process the petitioner's passport application and issue
passport to the petitioner without raising objection with regard to
pendency of the aforesaid crime subject to the petitioner fulfilling other
conditions in the relevant Act and Rules. This Court has not specified
the period for which the Passport of the petitioner to be issued.
Therefore, 2nd respondent without considering Rule 12(1) of the Rules,
issued the Passport of the petitioner for a period of one year i.e., from
13.04.2022 to 12.04.2023. Therefore, the said action of 3rd respondent
is not in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Rules and also aforesaid guidelines.
10. Bombay High Court in case of Narendra K. Ambwati vs.
Union of India and others1 and also in Samip Nitin Ranjani vs. Union
of India2, referring to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India3, and judgments held that Passport
of the citizen has to be extended for a period of ten years as per Rule
12(1) of the Rules.
11. Smt. Anjali Agarwal, learned standing counsel for Central
Government on instructions would submit that there is no direction to
issue passport for a period of ten years in the order dated 23.02.2022 in
W.P.No.5526 of 2022. Therefore, they have issued the Passport of the
petitioner for a period of one year in terms of Gazette notification vide
GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993.
12. It is also relevant to note that after issuance of the Passport
of the petitioner for a period of one year i.e., from 13.04.2022 to
12.04.2023, the petitioner herein had not submitted any application to
2nd respondent with a request to renew the Passport for a period of 10
years in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Rules.
2014 SCC OnLine Bom 356
2016 SCC OnLine Bom 14539
AIR 1978 SC 1978
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed
of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an application to 3rd
respondent requesting to renew his Passport for a period of 10 years.
On receipt of said application, 3rd respondent shall consider and renew
the Passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years as per 12(1) of the
Rules. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner wants to travel
abroad, he has to obtain permission from the court concerned in
Cr.No.71 of 2020, dated 20.04.2020 pending on the file of Nandigama
Police Station, Cyberabad District. He shall cooperate with the
Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents if any,
in concluding investigation and shall cooperate with the trial Court, if
the Investigating Officer lays charge sheet against him. If the petitioner
fails to obtain said permission from the aforesaid Court to travel abroad,
liberty is granted to 3rd respondent to take action in accordance with
law. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:12.10.2022
vvr
