JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - The petitioner was granted passport by respondents No.1 & 2 being Passport No.G 7856010 under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, the validity of which expired on 24-3-2018. He filed application for renewal of passport but in that renewal application, police verification was sought in which it was revealed that some criminal case / trial is pending against him in the jurisdictional criminal Court and thereby respondents No.1 and 2 sought clarification / explanation from him, as he is suffering trial for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 before the trial Magistrate where his criminal trial is pending, for necessary orders directing renewal of passport which has been rejected by the impugned order holding that the order seeking explanation is appealable against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

2. Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application holding it to be appealable ignoring the notification dated 25th August, 1993 issued by the Central Government by which subject to no objection from the criminal court, passport can be renewed pending trial of criminal case, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and the matter be remitted to the jurisdictional criminal Court for considering the case of the petitioner for granting him permission to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

3. Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the Union of India / respondents No.1 & 2, would submit that if the jurisdictional criminal Court permits the petitioner in accordance with the notification dated 25th of August, 1993, it can be remitted to that Court for consideration.

4. Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would submit that it be left to the criminal Court for determination in light of the notification dated 25th of August, 1993.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. In the matter of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 , the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) has held that right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and right to travel abroad on the aspect of personal liberty cannot be curtailed without reasonable opportunity to show cause. It was further held that the procedure in Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and hence rules of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued with passport being Passport No.G 7856010 which expired on 24-3-2018 for renewal of which he applied on 11-4-2019 in which clarification was sought about the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner and his passport was not renewed pending trial, as the petitioner is suffering trial for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC being Criminal Case No.57/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Abhishek Tiwari @ Raji and another) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.

8. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 is relevant and is noticed herein-below which prescribes that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country on the ground that an offence committed by the person seeking renewal of passport is pending before a criminal court in India. Clause (f