ORDER :

The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question acknowledgment dated 20-09-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent/Regional Passport Office declining to issue a normal validity passport for a period of ten years to the petitioner, on its re-issuance.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner is an employee working in the cadre of Senior Manager (Process and Planning) at Mann+Hummel Filter Private Limited, Tumakuru. The petitioner was issued a normal passport like any citizen of the nation which was to be valid for a period of ten years from 11-04-2014 to 10-04-2024. During the said period the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 182 r/w 34 of the IPC. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and his father and wife are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3. The said proceedings are pending trial in S.C.No.28 of 2017 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. When the crime was registered, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order dated 27-04-2015, imposing certain conditions permitted travel of the petitioner by directing him to obtain prior permission at every point of travel from the Court of Sessions. It appears that the petitioner has at every point in time sought permission and travelled abroad on his work.

3. The issue in the present case is not concerning permission to travel. As observed hereinabove, the validity of the passport issued to the petitioner on 11-04-2014 would expire on 10-04-2024. The petitioner possesses a Schengen VISA which is valid up to 26-08-2014 but he is not permitted to travel on the score that validity of the passport has come down to less than six months. Therefore, he makes an application for re-issuance of the passport. The application is returned by declining re-issuance on hold on account of criminal case pending trial before the competent Court. This is communicated to the petitioner through an acknowledgement letter which is impugned in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri U.Karthik Yadav, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONER:

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it is not for the first time the petitioner is being issued with the passport. He had a passport right from 11-04-2014 which was valid upto 10-04-2024. As the validity of the passport has come down to less than six months, he is denied permission to travel. He would submit that pendency of a criminal case cannot come in the way of re-issuance of passport to a citizen. Travel or otherwise is a different circumstance. But, merely because a criminal case is pending, the passport of the petitioner cannot be denied to be re-issued. He would seek to place reliance upon decisions rendered by coordinate Benches of this Court in KRISHNA CHIRANJEEVI RAO PALUKURI VENKATA v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, W.P.No.9141 of 2020 decided on 1-10-2020; SANJAY G.KHENY v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, W.P.No.201057 of 2022 decided on 13-07-2022 and SRIMATI NASEEMA KHANUM v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, W.P.No.105735 of 2022 decided on 18-01-2023. On placing reliance upon these judgments, he would submit that writ petition be allowed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a normal validity passport for a period of ten years.

UNION OF INDIA:

6. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches were rendered following the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ASHOK