JUDGMENT :

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.

1. A passport came to be issued to the appellant by the passport authority earlier on 19.02.1983. Upon expiry of the old passport, the appellant claims that a Passport Bearing No.L2774029 was issued on 21.06.2013 which was to remain valid till 20.06.2023.

The appellant claims that he submitted an application dated 27.05.2023 to the respondent authorities for renewal of the passport which was to expire on 20.06.2023.

2. A show-cause notice, dated 14.09.2023, came to be issued by the passport authority seeking an explanation regarding suppression of material information in the passport application regarding the involvement of the appellant in some criminal cases. Needless to say that, according to Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967, if a person knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document, it would be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.

3. After the receipt of the notice, the stand of the appellant as is reflected from the pleadings is that there is in fact an F.I.R., registered under Sections 188 , 269, 341 and 143 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE filed against the appellant with Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada, which resulted in the filing of a criminal case which is pending trial before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. It is stated that the appellant did not have knowledge about any such criminal case having been registered or was pending trial and therefore an appropriate reply was submitted by the appellant to the show-cause notice, dated 14.09.2023. It is stated that not only that reply has not been considered but the respondent authorities had even failed to issue the passport duly renewed in his favour.

4. It was urged that the pendency of a criminal case would not be a ground for refusal to either issue a passport or renew a passport. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulyu v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2020 Cri. LJ 572 (SC).

5. Before we refer to the judgment relied upon by the appellant, it is necessary to rely on few relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Rules framed thereunder.

5A. Section 5(1) envisages the making of an application for issuance of a passport under the Act, whereas Section 5(2)(c) inter alia envisages the power of the passport authority to refuse the issuance of a passport or travel document or, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

5B. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act envisages the power of the passport authority to refuse issuance of a passport or a travel document for visiting any foreign country on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal Court in India.

5C. Section 22 of the Act, however, vests the Central Government with the power to exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder.

5D. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 24 of the Act, the Central Government has framed the Rules viz., the Passports Rules, 1980.

5E. In exercise of the powers vested under Section 22 of the Act, the Central Government issued a Notification Bearing No.G.S.R.570(E), dated 25.08.1993, exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence is alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a Criminal Court in India. The notification reads as under :

"(a) the 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; or

(ii) .............

(c) any passport issued in terms