IMPORTANT POINT
The right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21, and a red corner notice alone cannot justify the denial of passport services without an extradition request.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition challenges Ext.P10 order of the third respondent and Ext.P15 order of the second respondent in an appeal filed against the Ext.P10 order.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.688/2020 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy arising from Crime No.502 of 2018 of Mala Police Station as also in C.C. No.246/2022 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur arising from Crime No.736/2019 of Varappuzha Police Station. Crime No.502 of 2018 has been registered alleging commission of the offence under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC while Crime No.736 of 2019 has been registered under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner applied for the re-issue of his passport relying on the permissions granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur, permitting the issue of a passport to the petitioner. While the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy permitted the renewal/re-issue of the passport for a period of three years, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, North Paravur permitted the renewal/reissue of the passport for a period of five years. It appears that there is a red corner notice issued by Interpol on account of certain proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the Law Enforcement agencies in Qatar. The Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority found that since the petitioner had not produced any permission to travel abroad from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur and on account of the red corner notice issued against the petitioner, he is not entitled to a re-issue of the passport.

3. Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the instructions of Adv. Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar submits that the permissions granted to the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur clearly indicate that the petitioner is entitled to the re-issue of his passport. It is submitted that those orders only require that before travelling abroad, the petitioner is to obtain further permission from those Courts. It is submitted that the petitioner will travel abroad only after obtaining permission from those Courts and therefore, the finding that the orders permitting the re-issue of passport are not sufficient for considering the application for such re-issue may not be sustainable.

4. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra and Others ; (2009) 9 SCC 551 to contend that the mere issuance of a red corner notice is not sufficient for the arrest of a person in India. It is submitted that a perusal of Ext.P17 will indicate that the petitioner was convicted for a period of one year by the authorities in Qatar and while a red corner notice has been issued, no steps for extraditing the petitioner from India have been taken by the authorities. It is submitted that a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani (supra) will indicate that unless proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962 have been initiated, a person cannot be extradited from India. It is submitted that Ext.P17 will indicate that the petitioner was convicted in Qatar on 18.10.2020 and for the past more than 4 years, no steps have been taken by the Qatar authorities to obtain extradition of the petitioner from India. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the non-consideration of the application filed by the petitioner for the re-issue of his passport is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned Central Government Counsel vehemently opposes t