The pendency of criminal proceedings against an applicant does not automatically disentitle them from obtaining a passport. The passport authority has the discretion to consider the specific merits of each case and the nexus between the criminal proceedings and the applicant's travel abroad. Additionally, the passport authority must afford a hearing to the applicant before refusing to issue a passport.

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THE Court: The petitioner's case is that he was holding an Indian passport and while he was on a visit to Hong Kong, this passport was lost. On his return to India, the petitioner applied for the issuance of a duplicate passport but the respondent No. 2 by his communication dated 27th April 1998 intimated to the petitioner his inability to issue the said passport to him on the ground that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not clear the name of the petitioner for the grant of such a passport. It is this order of respondent No. 2 which the petitioner has assailed in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) GRANT of passport undoubtedly is a valuable right of every citizen of India. Refusal to grant a passport undoubtedly is an act which has to be preceded by objective considerations and principles of fair play and natural justice. If a citizen of India is being denied the right of the grant of a passport, the cardinal principles of audi alterem partem immediately come into play with the result that a right of hearing immediately accrues to the person who is sought to be denied the grant of a passport. Unless, therefore the person being deprived of this right is afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, no order refusing to grant the passport can be passed. This is the basic and cardinal principle of law.

( 3 ) IN the instant case, I find that the respondent No. 2 passed the order of refusal of granting passport to the petitioner only on the ground that he had been informed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that since certain cases were sub judice against the petitioner, the passport facilities should not be granted to him at present. In fact, the communication dated 27th April 1998 makes an observation about some recommendations made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for denying to the petitioner the facility of the grant of a passport and apparently it is on the basis of this recommendation made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to respondent No. 2 that the passport has been refused to the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 produced before me the original record to show that in fact some criminal cases have been pending against the petitioner. I have seen this record and find that a list of five cases, all relating to some sections of the Indian Penal Code, has been mentioned as the cases pending against the petitioner. Out of these five cases, I find that only one case is pending trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (wrongly mentioned in the list as learned Additional District Judge), 4th Court, Alipore. In other four cases, what appears to me is that either the proceedings against the petitioner have been dropped or that the matter is at the stage of investigation or that the State has challenged the order passed by a subordinate court to a superior Appellate/original forum. Whether the pendency of one trial under some sections of the Indian Penal Code is a bar for a citizen of this country to obtain a passport is for the respondent No. 2 to consider. Similarly, whether the mere fact that some criminal cases were pending before the police at some stage, the same having since been either dropped or being under some stage of investigation also operate as a bar for grant of passport is again a matter for the consideration of respondent No. 2 alone. As far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they will be well within their rights to submit their report and comments, along with as much supporting reasoning and documents as possible, to argue before respondent No. 2 that, based on this material and reasoning the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of a passport, but the ultimate decision has to be taken by respondent No. 2 whether in fact the petitioner can be denied the right of getting a passport, specially in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in various judgments on the subject, including in the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document