Telangana High Court

Chada Laxmi Narasimha Reddy vs The Union Of India on 13 June, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

        HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


             WRIT PETITION No.14129 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Mr. N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard

Mr.Sanjeeva Reddy Gillela, learned Central Government

Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and

2. The petitioner has approached the Court seeking

the following relief:

"......to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not renewing the passport of the petitioner bearing No. Y2617855 for a period of 10 (ten) years and in renewing the same for a period of one year only i.e. from 16.05.2024 to 15.05.2025, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently, direct the Respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner bearing No.Y2617855 for a period of 10 (ten) years in accordance with Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the

averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the

present Writ petition is as under:

SN,J WP_14129_2024

i) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the

petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.H9026498 for a

period of 10 years. As the same was due to expire, petitioner

submitted an application for renewal of the said passport vide

file No.HY9074719237522, dated 28.10.2022. The said

application was considered by the second respondent and a

clarification was sought from the petitioner by issuing a letter

reference No.SCN/ 313783233/22, dated 23.11.2022 on the

ground that an adverse police verification report was received

stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.220 of 2022

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 290 and 506

of IPC on the file of P.S. Dubbak which is under investigation.

In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his

clarification on the said issue, but since the file was still

pending with the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached

the office of 2nd respondent and the petitioner was informed

that his passport would not be renewed till finalization of the

criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Cr.No.220 of

2022 on the file of P.S.Dubbak.

ii) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No.

6949 of 2024 and this Court, by its Order dated 18.3.2024,

SN,J WP_14129_2024

was pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent herein to consider

the explanation dated 18.1.2023 furnished by the petitioner in

response to the notice issued by the 2nd Respondent dated

23.11.2022, for renewal of her passport subject to imposing

various conditions, which reads as under:-

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in Cr.No.220 of 2022, stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said case without permission of the Court and that he will co-

operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said case.;

ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;

iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent Passport Officer for renewal of his passport;

iv) The Respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law;

v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in, Cr.No.220 of 2022; and

vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law."

iii) Pursuant to the said order, petitioner is stated to

have complied with all the conditions and on considering the

same, the second respondent renewed the passport of the

petitioner and issued a new passport bearing No.Y2617855,

SN,J WP_14129_2024

which is valid for a period of one year only i.e., from

16.05.2024 to 15.05.2025. Aggrieved by such action of the

second respondent in renewing the passport only for a period

of one year instead of ten years, as contemplated under Rule

12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 ("the Rules, 1980" for brevity),

the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ

Petition. Hence, this writ petition.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is

represented by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government,

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the

subject issue in this present writ petition is squarely covered

by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17965 of 2023,

dated 10.11.2023 and the order of this Court dated

26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2422 of 2024, hence, the

present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the

order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 17965 of 2023, dated

10.11.2023 and the order of this Court dated 26.02.2024

passed in W.P.No.2422 of 2024.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

SN,J WP_14129_2024

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

5. This Court under similar circumstances had been

passing orders directing the respondent-Regional

Passport Authority to consider the application of the

petitioner seeking issuance/renewal/release of

passport. This court further opines that, pendency of

criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground

to deny issuance of a passport or deny renewal of

passport or impound or detain a passport since the

right to personal liberty of an individual would include

not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to

possess a Passport.

6. It is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for

Central Government, appearing for the respondents that, in

terms of the Gazette notification vide G.S.R. 570(E), dated

25.08.1993 issued under Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Act,

1967 read with Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of

the Act, 1967, the petitioner is required to obtain permission

from the Court concerned in order to travel abroad and for

issuance of a passport and in terms of such permission only

SN,J WP_14129_2024

the passport of the petitioner can be renewed as the

petitioner is involved in criminal case and the same is

pending for disposal.

7. In terms of the said Gazette notification, dated

25.08.1993, if no period is specified by the Court concerned

while granting permission for travel abroad or for renewal of

the passport, the passport would be renewed only for a

period of one year and accordingly, in terms of the said

Gazette notification, the passport of the petitioner is renewed

for a period of one year. The purpose of putting restriction

against the persons who are involved in a criminal case is

with a view to ensure their presence for disposal of the said

criminal case in accordance with law. No doubt, the

petitioner herein is involved in Crime No.220 of 2022 of

Dubbak Police Station.

8. The petitioner herein, having been aggrieved by the

refusal order passed by the second respondent refusing to

renew/issue passport, approached this Court on an earlier

occasion by filing W.P.No.6949 of 2024 and this Court,

having taken note of pendency of the said crime, disposed of

SN,J WP_14129_2024

the said Writ Petition by imposing various conditions, as

noted hereinabove. By virtue of the said conditions, sufficient

safeguards have been provided to ensure the presence of the

petitioner and also to ensure that the petitioner does not

leave the country without the permission of the Court where

the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. In the

order passed by this Court, this Court has neither restricted

the second respondent nor issued any specific direction to

renew the passport only for a period of one year or any

further period. In the absence of prescribing any such period

and in the light of the various safeguards that are provided

by imposing conditions in the order passed by this Court in

order, dated 18.03.2024 in W.P.No.6949 of 2024, the

purpose of imposing restrictions on issuance/renewal of the

passport is taken care of well. Once this Court directed for

consideration of the case of the petitioner for renewal/reissue

of passport after holding that the petitioner cannot be denied

renewal of his passport on the ground of mere pendency of

the criminal case, it is obligatory on the part of the second

respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for

renewal in accordance with the Rules, 1980. Rule 12 of the

SN,J WP_14129_2024

Rules, 1980 provides for duration of the passports or renewal

of documents, wherein it provides for renewal of a passport

for ten years in the normal course. In the light of the earlier

order passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner ought

to have been considered under Rule 12 of the Rules, 1980 by

treating the same as an application submitted in the normal

course but the second respondent, instead of renewing the

passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years, renewed

the passport for a period of one year only.

9. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the

Judgment dated 13.03.2014, reported in 2014 SCC

OnLine Bom 356 in "Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of

India", observed at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7, as under:

"6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.

7. In the present case, the Respondents contended that the order of the learned Magistrate did not specify the period for which the passport is issued and in the

SN,J WP_14129_2024

light of Notification dated 23rd August, 1993 (Annexure "6" to the petition), the passport of the citizen against whom the proceedings are pending in the criminal court in India, shall be issued for a period specified by the court and if no period is specified, the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. This court held that interpretation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20th September, 2006 is contrary to the express language of the order. When the order speaks about renewal of the passport in terms of the Passport Rules, reference must be made to Rule 12 alone and the Passport Officer was bound to issue the passport either for a period of 10 years or for a period of 20 years as the case may be in his discretion. The Passport Officer could not have at any rate renewed the passport for a period less than 10 years. Accordingly, the Rule was made absolute and the Regional Passport Officer was directed to issue the passport, renewed for a period of 10 years or 20 years."

10. Another Judgment dated 30.11.2016 of the

Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 2016

SCC OnLine Bom 14539 : (2020) 3 AIR Bom R 459 in

Mr. Samip Nitin Ranjani v. Union of India and others,

observed at relevant paragraphs 3 and 4, as under:

SN,J WP_14129_2024

"3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Passport Authorities, instead of renewing the passport for a period of 10 years as provided under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, has renewed the passport only for a period of one year. Challenging the same, writ was filed.

4. In our view, the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Division Bench of this Court has issued guidelines which are to be followed by the Respondents on the receipt of application for renewal of passport. It is observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:

"10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate's court has directed that the passport may be renewed as per the "Rules".

11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:-

(a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other than for a child aged more than 15

SN,J WP_14129_2024

years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for at least ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants at least for ten years.

(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.

(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders

SN,J WP_14129_2024

to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned."

11. Taking into consideration:

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case

(b) The observations of the Courts in the judgments

referred to and extracted above,

(c) The earlier orders of this Court, dated 10.11.2023

passed in W.P.No.17965 of 2023 and the order of this

Court, dated 26.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.2422 of

2024 under identical circumstances, the writ petition is

allowed as prayed for.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the

second respondent is directed to renew the passport

bearing No.Y2617855 for a period of ten years and

reissue the same subject to payment of usual charges

by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a

period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

12. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall strictly

comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in its order,

SN,J WP_14129_2024

in W.P.No.6949 of 2024 dated 18.03.2024, as and when the

petitioner intends to travel abroad. However, there shall be