SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 3092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Mohd. Salim @ Rehmatullah – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. –Respondents
W.P.(C) No.12225/2015 & CM No.32451/2015 (for direction)
Decided On : 23.12.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Maroof Ahmad for Mr. B.U. Barqi, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Nitya Sharma, Adv. for UOI

The central legal point established in the judgment is that once a notification is issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, specifying the period for which a passport would be issued to persons with pending criminal proceedings, Section 7 of the Act, which deals with the duration of passports, would have no application to such persons.

Headnote:

Passport Renewal - Passport Rules - Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 - Notification GSR 570(E) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 22 of the Passports Act and the notification issued by the Government of India under this section, which exempted citizens with pending criminal proceedings from the operation of certain passport provisions and specified the period for which the passport would be issued. The court held that once such a notification is issued, Section 7 of the Act, which deals with the duration of passports, would have no application to such persons. The petitioner was given the option to challenge the notification or obtain an order from the Criminal Court for passport renewal beyond one year.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought mandamus to renew his passport for a period of ten years, as provided in the Passport Rules, 1980. The respondents had renewed his passport for a period of one year at a time, in accordance with a notification issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the notification issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act exempted citizens with pending criminal proceedings from certain passport provisions and specified the period for which the passport would be issued. It further held that Section 7 of the Act, which deals with the duration of passports, would have no application to such persons.

Issues: The issues involved the renewal of the petitioner's passport for a period of ten years, as provided in the Passport Rules, 1980, and the applicability of the notification issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act to the petitioner's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 22 of the Passports Act and the notification issued under this section, which exempted citizens with pending criminal proceedings from certain passport provisions and specified the period for which the passport would be issued.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, giving the petitioner the liberty to challenge the notification or obtain an order from the Criminal Court for passport renewal beyond one year.

ORDER :

1. Proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are admittedly pending before a Criminal Court in India. Though the said Criminal Court is stated to have permitted the petitioner to depart from India and to seek renewal of his passport as per Rules and Regulations but without specifying the period for which the petitioner is entitled to have such renewal of his passport.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved from the action of the respondents Ministry of External Affairs and Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad of renewing his passport for a period of one year at a time and not for a period of ten years as provided in Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980. This petition has been filed seeking mandamus to the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years.

3. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice has referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balwinder Singh Vs. Union of India (2005) 139 PLR 346 which reproduces Notification dated 25th August, 1993 issued by the Government of India under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967. Section 22 of the Passports Act is as under: ?

22. Power to exempt—Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification,—

(a) 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; and

(b) as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions.”

And the Notification aforesaid is as under: ?

No, GSR 570(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R.(E), dated the 14th April, 1970, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of sub section (2)of Section 6 of the said Act. Subject to the following conditions, namely;-

(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 specified a period for which the passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or

(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.

(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) and (a)(ii) can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;

(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;

(d) the Laid citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by t













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top