Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Ashok Muthana
Versus
The Regional Passport Officer & Another
Writ Petition No. 33546 of 2013
Decided On : 24-09-2014
Passport Act 1967 - Section 6(2)(e) read with 10(b) and (e) – Anticipatory bail - Return of passport for renewal - Extension of validity of passport - Petitioner was Ex-Chairman of a non-banking Finance Company which went into liquidation - Lot of Criminal Complaints came to be filed on file of Economic Offences Wing - Petitioner was arrested in Crime and was later released on bail by this Court - As one of conditions for grant of bail his passport had to be surrendered to court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – However this Court by order passed directed return of passport for renewal and also permitted petitioner to travel during period from June to July - But when petitioner submitted an application for extension of validity of passport which was to expire Regional Passport Office directed petitioner to obtain orders of this Court – Therefore petitioner filed a writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct Regional Passport Officer to extend validity of passport beyond - Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order directing Assistant Passport Officer to renew passport and to keep it in custody of XI Metropolitan Magistrate - In pursuance of said decision passport was renewed and was kept in custody of XI Metropolitan Magistrate – Held, Therefore court of view that denial of benefit of period of validity already stipulated in passport up without taking recourse to Section 10(1) cannot be sustained - Once period of validity of passport is found such period can be altered only by taking recourse to power of variation under Section 10(1) - Alternatively first Respondent has to take recourse for impounding or revocation under Section 10(3) - Coming to Criminal Cases faced by petitioner it is seen that those Criminal Cases already formed part of records in previous writ petition - First Respondent had made a mention about Criminal Cases in that case - Yet an order was passed by Judge allowing writ petition - Operative portion of order of Judge - This is a matter entirely for first respondent to decide as to whether Passport of petitioner should be renewed or revoked on grounds which are available under provisions of Act and Rules made there under - It is needless to say that every citizen of this country is entitled to get Passport subject to provisions of Act and Rules and petitioner has already obtained a valid Passport - In present case petitioner is seeking only for renewal of his Passport - It is not open to first respondent to say that it cannot be renewed - Under these circumstances first respondent is directed to renew petitioners Passport and continue to keep it in custody of XI Metropolitan Magistrate and writ petition is allowed to extent indicated above - However there will be no order as to costs - With reference to other request made by Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner regarding permission to petitioner to travel abroad it is for petitioner to approach concerned Court to seek permission to travel abroad and also for return of Passport for period to which he is likely to travel abroad – Therefore in view of fact that validity of Passport now held by petitioner is up impugned order taking recourse to Section 6(2) is not proper - So long as there is no proceeding either under Section 10(1) or under Section 10(3) first Respondent cannot deny issue of additional book - What petitioner now seeks is only issue of additional book till period of validity of existing passport - Writ petition is allowed
1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first Respondent refusing to re-issue the passport.
2. The petitioner was the Ex-Chairman of a non-banking Finance Company which went into liquidation. Lot of Criminal Complaints came to be filed on the file of the Economic Offences Wing. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.1 of 2001 and was later released on bail by this Court. As one of the conditions for the grant of bail, his passport had to be surrendered to the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. However, this Court, by order dated 20.12.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11297 of 2004 directed the return of the passport for renewal and also permitted the petitioner to travel to USA during the period from June 2005 to July 2005.
3. But when the petitioner submitted an application for extension of the validity of the passport, which was to expire on 17.02.2005, the Regional Passport Office directed the petitioner to obtain orders of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24158 of 2006 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Passport Officer to extend the validity of the passport beyond 17.02.2005.
4. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 12.09.2006, directing the Assistant Passport Officer to renew the passport and to keep it in the custody of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. In pursuance of the said decision, the passport was renewed and was kept in the custody of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for return of passport, but his application in Crl.M.P.No.4460 of 2006 was dismissed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 22.01.2007. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a Revision in Crl.R.C.No.287 of 2007. The Revision Petition was allowed by this Court by an order dated 26.02.2007 directing the trial Court to return the passport, with some conditions. Accordingly, the passport was returned.
6. Thereafter, a fresh passport was also issued with the validity for a period from 30.09.2008 to 16.02.2015. When the petitioner applied for the issue of additional sheets, the passport was reissued only with a validity period of one year from 01.06.2012 to 31.05.2013. Therefore, when the petitioner again applied, on 17.09.2013, he was issued with a passport valid only up to 04.12.2013. In the meantime, a show cause notice dated 04.10.2013 was issued by the Regional Passport Officer, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for the suppression of information regarding 5 cases pending against the petitioner in the Economic Offences Wing. The petitioner gave a reply dated 10.10.2013 pointing out that he had not suppressed any information and that details about these cases already form part of the record in the order passed in W.P.No.24158 of 2006.
7. Thereafter, the Regional Passport Officer sent a communication dated 12.11.2013, rejecting the request of the petitioner for reissue of passport, till the Criminal Cases are disposed of. Therefore, challenging the communication dated 12.11.2013 and seeking a direction to the first Respondent to renew his passport, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.
8. I have heard Mr. K.S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
9. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Criminal Cases that are pending against him from the year 2001, were not considered as an impediment for this Court to order the return of the passport in December, 2004 so as to enable the petitioner to travel to USA. The pendency of those Criminal Cases was also not considered as an impediment for this Court to pass order in W.P. No. 24158 of 2006. According to Mr. K.S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the pet
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
