Point of Law : No fault can be found with the 1st respondent issuing notice under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, directing surrender of passport which had admittedly been obtained by suppressing involvement in crime and further directing submission of fresh application divulging all details. [Para 10]

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question communication dated 27-09-2022 issued by the 1st respondent/Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore and has sought a consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to renew/re-issue the passport to the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri B.K. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The petitioner is in possession of an Indian Passport bearing No.V2615889. The petitioner becomes involved in a criminal case in Crime No.16 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 417, 120B, 380 r/w 34 of the IPC. In the said case, the Police after investigation have filed a ‘B’ report and the ‘B’ report is pending consideration at the hands of the learned Magistrate. The 1st respondent in terms of his communication dated 27-09-2022 directs surrender of passport within 21 days from receipt of the said communication. It is this communication that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the very act of the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to surrender the passport is contrary to law. The direction to surrender is on the basis of pendency of FIR in Crime No.16 of 2021 and police after investigation have filed a ‘B’ report. Surrendering of passport can be made only when the petitioner is held guilty for furnishing any false information in terms of Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act,1967 (‘the Act’ for short) which is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. He would seek quashing of the said communication.

5. On the other hand, the Deputy Solicitor General of India representing respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the remedy for the petitioner is before the concerned Court before whom the crime is pending adjudication. He would submit that admittedly, the passport of the petitioner has expired and on its expiry it has to be re-issued. For re-issue in terms of Section 6 of the Act he should be free of crime. Filing of ‘B’ report does not make the petitioner free of crime as ‘B’ report could be accepted or rejected by the learned Magistrate. He would seek to place reliance upon several office memoranda issued by the 1st respondent/Union of India from time to time concerning issuance of passport to its citizens. He would further contend that the petitioner be directed to approach the concerned Court seeking travel permission, in case it is warranted.

6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to place reliance on the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench wherein a direction was issued for issuance of passport despite pendency of crime in Writ Petition No.19203 of 2021 [Smt. Kasturi Rajupeta v. Union of India and others – decided on 17th March 2022] to which the learned Deputy Solicitor General joining issue would submit that the said judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench is stayed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.392 of 2022 and the matter is pending consideration. He would submit that the petitioner has to approach the concerned Court for any relief.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was in possession of a passport which had expired at the relevant point in time. The petitioner seeks re-issuance of his passport on its expiry. On the basis of the documents submitted, the respondent-Regional Passport Officer r