SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. In this writ petition, petitioner seek, a direction to the respondent to take back the original of Ext.P3 Passport and issue a fresh Passport valid for a period of 10 years and other consequential reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that since the respondent has issued the Passport to the petitioner for a period of one year on account of pendency of a criminal case, visa cannot be stamped in the Passport of the petitioner. Petitioner is an accused in S.T. No. 1394 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, arising from Crime No. 35 of 2016 of the Guruvayur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323, r/w Section 34 of IPC. Petitioner was released on bail and was regularly appearing before the trial court. Petitioner, after completing his education, wanted to go abroad for securing employment. Therefore, petitioner applied before the J.F.C.M. Court, Chavakkad seeking permission to go abroad in terms of Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, in terms of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967. The learned Magistrate allowed the application, holding that the petitioner is already enlarged on bail and is now facing trial and the presence of the petitioner on all posting dates is not necessary. Therefore, it is observed that there was no objection for issuing Passport to the petitioner and the Passport authority can issue the Passport to the petitioner ignoring the pendency of the case, evident from Ext.P2.

3. Thereupon, petitioner applied for a Passport after complying with all the formalities required for the purpose. Accordingly, respondent has issued a Passport bearing No. N-9778258 dated 12.04.2016, which is valid only for a period of 1 year, and the date of expiry of the said Passport is 11.04.2017, evident from Ext.P3.

4. It is submitted, petitioner has managed to get a job in U.A.E. for a period of two years and the petitioner is required to stamp a visa for the above said period of two years. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the renewal of the Passport for a period of only one year. The restriction of validity of the Passport for a period of one year makes it necessary for the petitioner to have his employer stamp Visa on the passport every year, which makes the job of the petitioner in the present company precarious. Petitioner therefore, approached the respondent requesting to issue a Passport to the petitioner valid for a period of 10 years, as is usually done. Respondent, however, is taking a stand that unless the petitioner obtains orders from this Court, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. According to the petitioner, this Court had occasion to consider the issue in W.P. (C) Nos. 26084 of 2013 and 649 of 2015, and has held therein that the Passport shall be renewed for a usual tenure of 10 years. Therefore, petitioner is also entitled to get similar treatment from this Court.

5. Respondent has filed a statement and among other contentions, it is stated that the J.F.C.M. Court, Chavakkad has issued the order in question, by which the Passport Officer, Cochin was directed to consider the application of the petitioner ignoring the pendency of the case. Further, it was made clear that the accused shall not leave India without obtaining prior permission from the court based on the said passport. The validity of the Passport can be extended to the petitioner only on production of an order from the competent court.

6. It is also stated that the Government through notification GSR No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, laid down provisions to enable people who have cases pending against them in various courts to obtain a passport. Petitioner is also entitled to get the Passport issued on account of the parameters and stipulations