Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/341/2019 on 5 April, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
05.04.2022
WPMS No. 341 of 2019
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate, for
the respondent.
The petitioner to the present writ
petition had prayed for a writ of mandamus,
directing the respondents to issue passport in his
favour.
Brief backdrop of the case was that the
petitioner had filed an application through
online on 19th December 2017, for the grant of
passport, but there was an adverse police report
against the petitioner, which was submitted on
24th January 2018, whereby, as per the report, it
was observed that the petitioner was involved in
a criminal case, which is pending trial and
hence on the basis of adverse criminal record of
the petitioner, his application for the grant of
passport, was not considered.
Respondents have filed their counter
affidavit and in the counter affidavit thus filed
by the respondents, they have submitted that in
view of the Notification dated 25th August
1993, issued by the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India, while exercising
its powers under sub Clause (a) of Section 22 of
the Passport Act, it had provided, that if there is
any pending proceeding, before the Criminal
Court in India, it would always create an
impediment in considering the application for
issuance of the passport.
In the case at hand, admittedly,
proceedings under Section 13(1)(d) to be read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, was taken against the
petitioner by registration of an FIR, being FIR
No. 151 of 2018, which was tried by the Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/Sessions
Judge, district Nainital, in Special Trial No. 6 of
2010, State Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma,
wherein by the judgment, which has been
rendered by the Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act)/Sessions Judge, the petitioner
has been acquitted of the charges, though,
against the said judgement of acquittal, an
Appeal has been preferred before the High
Court, which is pending consideration.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the pendency of an Appeal against
the judgement of acquittal by the prosecution,
may not in itself create an impediment to attract
the embargos of the Notification, which has
been issued by the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, as referred above.
In support of his contention, he has
made reference to a judgment, which has been
rendered by a Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court in Writ Petition No. 27460 of 2021
dated 9th December 2021, wherein almost in an
akin set of circumstances, where there was an
order of acquittal passed in favour of the
petitioner, the Division Bench took the view
that the passport authorities should consider the
application in accordance with law and the
pendency of a Criminal Appeal, against the
judgement of acquittal in itself may not be taken
as if to be a criminal trial, which is pending
against the applicant to attract the implications
of Notification, issued by the Government of
India.
In that eventuality, this writ petition is
being disposed of with directions to the
respondent No. 1, herein to consider and pass an
appropriate order on the application of the
petitioner, which was submitted by the
petitioner on 19th December 2017, for the grant
of passport in the light of the principles laid
down by the judgment of the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court, and pass an appropriate
order, after considering the impact of acquittal.
It is expected that the Passport
Authority, prior to passing of any order would
call a fresh police report and take a decision on
the application in accordance with law.
The Passport Authority would consider
and pass an appropriate order on the application
of the petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of the certified copy
of this judgment.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
05.04.2022
Mahinder/
