Telangana High Court
Sri. Ravinder Singh Oberoi vs Union Of India on 22 March, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7693 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned counsel
representing Dy. Solicitor General of India, appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as
under:
"to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of Respondent No.2 in not renewing the passport
vide pending application File No. HY3073736189121
dt.22.11.2021, for re-issuance of passport is illegal,
arbitrary, violative of the principles of the natural justice,
against the settled principles of law and also violative of
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, against
the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the rules
made there under and the Principles of natural justice and
consequently direct Respondent No.2 to renew and re-
issue the new passport to the petitioner pursuant to the
application dt: 22.11.2021, vide file No:
HY3073736189121 forthwith and to pass such other order
or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the
averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the
petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as follows:
SN, J
a) The petitioner is holding a passport No.G6188758 issued
by respondent No.2 on 19.11.2007 and the same is valid till
18.11.2017. Pursuant to the expiry of the said passport, the
petitioner has made an application for renewal of the passport
vide application dated 22.11.2021 as the validity of the passport
expired more than three years ago.
b) The petitioner in order to renew the subject passport has
made an application vide HY3073736189121 dt.22.11.2021 for
re-issuance of the passport through an agent, specifying the
reason as "validity expired more than three years ago".
c) It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that, instead of
re-issuing the passport, the 2nd respondent has issued a letter
Ref No. SCN/312110237/22, dated 01.02.2022 seeking
clarifications regarding petitioner's involvement in FIR No.777 of
2020 filed under Section 447,427, 504, 506 of IPC of PS
Raidurgam, Cyberabad vide C.C. No.503 of 2021 pending on the
file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar,
Cyberabad.
d) The petitioner contends that, the allegations made in the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner are completely
SN, J
baseless and are civil in nature and the petitioner is taking
necessary steps to defend the matter.
e) It is further the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner
has submitted his detailed explanation pertaining to the cases
registered against the petitioner vide letter dated 15.02.2022 but
however, no action has been initiated by the 2nd respondent on
the application dated 22.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner
seeking re-issuance of passport facilities till as on date. Hence,
the petitioner approached this Court. Hence, the present writ
petition.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that the 2nd respondent may be
directed to pass orders on petitioner's application dated
22.11.2021 in accordance to law, within a reasonable
period.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends
that, respondents cannot refuse the reissuance of passport
facilities to the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the
aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and the said action
of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under
the Passports Act, 1967.
SN, J
PERUSED THE RECORD.
6. This court opines that pendency of criminal case
against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny
reissuance of Passport facilities to the petitioner and the
right to personal liberty of the petitioner would include
not only petitioner's right to travel abroad but also
petitioner's right to possess a Passport.
7. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu v Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 had an occasion to
examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and
pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a
passport can be only in case where an applicant is
convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately
preceding the date of application for an offence involving
moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not
less than two years. Section 6(2)(f) relates to a situation
where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The
petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under
Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an
SN, J
appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was
reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had
approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the
same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the
Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse
renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the
criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the
Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant
without raising the objection relating to the pendency of
the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.
8. The Apex Court in another judgment reported in
2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of
Delhi at para 13 observed as under:
"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is
proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to
all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
9. The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be
deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law
enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair,
SN, J
reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said
judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go
abroad unless there is a law made by the State
prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the
deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such
procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply
with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament
enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right
to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the
Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances
under which a passport may be issued or refused or
cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure
for doing so, but the question is whether that is
sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription
of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure
comply with any particular requirements? Obviously,
procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.
This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney
General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it
was not possible for him to contend that any procedure
howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be
prescribed by the law.
Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot
be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable
procedure.
10. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment
dated 09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC online SC 2048 in
Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others
observed at para 5 as under:
"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human
right for it nourishes independent and self-determining
SN, J
creative character of the individual, not only by extending
his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of
his experience. The right also extends to private life;
marriage, family and friendship which are the basic
humanities which can be affected through refusal of
freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human
right."
11. Referring to the said principle and also the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments,
considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India
from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union
of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that
a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just,
fair and reasonable procedure.
12. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in
Ganni Bhaskara Rao Vs. Union of India and another at
paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under:
"This Court after hearing both the learned
counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was
dealing with a person, who was convicted by the
Court and his appeal is pending for decision in
the Supreme Court. The conviction was however
stayed. In those circumstances also it was held
SN, J
that the passport authority cannot refuse the
"renewal" of the passport.
This Court also holds that merely because a person
is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he
cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our
jurisprudence every person is presumed
innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore,
the mere fact that a criminal case is pending
against the person is not a ground to conclude
that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even
under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the
passport can be impounded only if the holder
has been convicted of an offence involving
"moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less
than two years. The use of the conjunction 'and'
makes it clear that both the ingredients must be
present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound
the passport. If this is the situation post-
conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the
pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to
refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a
passport.
The second issue here in this case is about the
applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In
the opinion of this Court that section applies to
issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a
passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is
the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondents and is referred to in the counter
affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be
followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act
against a person whom the criminal cases are
pending. This notification permits them to approach
the Court and the Court can decide the period for
which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from
a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i)
states if no period is prescribed by the Court the
passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii)
states if the order of the Court gives permission to
SN, J
travel abroad for less than a year but has not
prescribed the validity period of the passport, then
the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause
(a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign
travel for more than one year but does not specify the
validity of the passport, the passport should be issued
for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such
a passport can also be renewed on Court orders.
Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very
clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants
from the rigour of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, GSR
570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance
of the passport and the period of its validity; the
period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and
control of the Court.
13. In the light of aforesaid discussion as arrived at as above
and duly considering the observations of the Apex Court and
other High Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted
above), this Court opines that mere pendency of criminal case is
not a ground to decline renewal of passport, therefore, the
petitioner herein is entitled for consideration of the application of
the petitioner dated 22.11.2021 seeking renewal of petitioner's
passport vide file No.HY3073736189121 by the 2nd respondent.
14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the
Apex Court and other High Courts in the various
judgments (referred to and extracted above), the 2nd
respondent is directed to re-consider petitioner's detailed
SN, J
explanation dated 15.02.2022 furnished by the petitioner
in response to notice dated 01.02.2022 issued to the
petitioner by the 2nd respondent herein, in accordance to
law, duly taking into consideration the view and the
observations of the Apex Court and other High Courts in
the judgments (referred to and extracted above), within a
period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order without reference to the pendency of the
proceedings in C.C. No.503 of 2021, subject to the
following conditions.
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking
along with an affidavit in C.C. No.503 of 2021,
pending on the file of XVI Additional metropolitan
Magistrate at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, stating that
he will not leave India during pendency of the said
C.C. without permission of the Court and that he will
co-operate with trial Court in concluding the
proceedings in the said C.C.;
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;
SN, J
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 to law;
v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein
shall deposit the original renewed Passport before
the trial Court in C.C. No.503 of 2021 and CC.No.409
of 2020; 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.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petition shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
__________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Dated:22nd March, 2024
ksl.
SN, J
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
DATED:22.03.2024
ksl
