The main legal point established is that the requirement for an NOC from the Court, based solely on an adverse police report and registration of an FIR without pending criminal proceedings before a court, is not justified under the Passport Act, 1967.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The petitioner holds Indian passport bearing No. K0166531 issued by respondent No. 2, which is valid w.e.f. 20th November, 2012 to 19th November, 2022. The petitioner filed an application on 20th December, 2021 for renewal/re-issue of the passport in his favour, which was going to expire on 19th November, 2022.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the lapse of substantial time, there was no intimation from respondent No. 2 in respect of status of his request for renewal/re-issue of the passport. The petitioner was, however, informed that his police verification was awaited. With a view to know the reasons for delay in issuance of renewal/re-issue of the passport, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act for seeking information in respect of the latest status of his passport file submitted on 20th December, 2021. In response to the Right to Information application filed by the petitioner, the respondents intimated to the petitioner that the delay was due to non-receipt of police verification report. It was, however, on 13.04.2022, the petitioner received a message from the passport office that the police had submitted an adverse report against him. The adverse police report was, however, not shared with the petitioner. The petitioner filed another application under Right to Information Act on 18th April, 2022, which was replied by the Public Information Officer of the respondents on 13th May, 2022 by serving a copy of the communicated dated 21.04.2022 intimating to the petitioner that the passport office had received a report from the police, which indicates that FIR No. 3/2019 is registered against him, as such, the petitioner is required to furnish No Objection Certificate from the Hon'ble Court. The petitioner submits that since there was no criminal proceeding pending in any Court, therefore, he could not submit No Objection Certificate from the Court. This made the respondent to close the case of the petitioner for renewal/re-issue of the passport, which fact was intimated to the petitioner by the Passport office through a text message dated 2nd June, 2022.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the communication of the respondents dated 21.04.2022 and the closure of request of the petitioner for re-issue of the passport, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to renew/re-issue the passport in favour of the petitioner before the earlier passport issued in favour of the petitioner expires. The petitioner also prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 21.04.2022, whereby the petitioner has been intimated that an FIR is registered against him and that he is required to furnish No Objection Certificate from the Court.

4. The impugned notice is assailed and the writ of mandamus prayed for in the petition is claimed primarily on the ground that under the Passport Act, 1967 [" the Passport Act"] and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no provision for asking the applicant for passport to submit 'No Objection Certificate' from the Court when there are no criminal proceedings pending against him in any competent Court of law. It is submitted that mere registration of FIR and initiation of investigation by the police authorities is no ground to reject the request for grant or renewal of the passport. Reliance in this regard is placed by the petitioner on Section 6 of the Passport Act to argue that the passport authority can refuse to issue passport or travel documents for visiting any foreign country only on the grounds mentioned in Clause (a) to (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Passport Act. Clause (f) only provides for refusing the issue of passport on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India.

5. Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner argues that the proceedings