Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Venkatesh Kandasamy – Appellant
Vs.
Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Chennai – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6742 of 2014
Decided On : 08/10/2014
Passports Act, 1969 – Sections 6, 12, 10 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 190 – Re-issue the Passport – Petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer, refusing to re-issue the Passport for the petitioner, on the ground that there are several criminal complaints pending against him and that the petitioner suppressed information about the same. – Held, Where the Passport Authority impounded the passport under Section 10(2)(e), on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the passport holder. – The Calcutta High Court held that there are two processes for initiation of a proceeding before a Criminal Court – While the first part is the investigation by the Police, the other part is the direction by the Court. – Therefore, after pointing out the condition prescribed in Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code for initiation of proceedings, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court opined that the proceedings before a Magistrate is initiated when cognizance is taken. – The Court held that no proceeding can be said to have been initiated under Clause (a) of Section 190 within the meaning of Section 10(2)(3) of the Passports Act. – It is not a case of the Respondent that final reports have been filed in the criminal Courts in any of the criminal complaints, so as to make the case come within the four corners of Section 6(2)(f). – Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind and hence it is liable to be set aside. – Petition Allowed.
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer, refusing to re-issue the Passport for the petitioner, on the ground that there are several criminal complaints pending against him and that the petitioner suppressed information about the same.
2. I have heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ravindranath, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the Respondent.
3. The petitioner first applied for a fresh Passport under Tatkal Scheme on 01.08.2007. Therefore, his application was processed, on Post-Police Verification Report basis and a Passport was issued on 07.08.2007 with a period of validity till 06.08.2017. Subsequently, the Police Verification Report dated 01.08.2007 came and it disclosed that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner in Crime No.61/2006 on the file of the Red Hills Police Station. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police did not recommend the issue of the Passport.
4. The petitioner applied for re-issue of Passport with a seal of ECNR (Emigration Check Not Required), on 08.05.2013. In the Police Verification Report dated 03.06.2013, the police pointed out that there were five more criminal cases pending against the petitioner on the file of M-4 Police Station in Crime Nos. 585/2008, 588/2008, 125/2011, 61/2006, 120/2011.
5. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18.07.2013 was issued to the petitioner, alleging suppression of material information. Challenging the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2167 of 2013. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 06.08.2013, giving time upto 19.08.2013 for the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice and also directing the Respondent to complete the enquiry within four weeks.
6. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.08.2013. After perusing the explanation, the Respondent passed the impugned order refusing to reissue the Passport to the petitioner in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and also imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1969.
7. The Respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material information in his application for the issue of Passport and that therefore he is liable to be proceeded under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act.
8. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act reads as follows:
6. Refusal of Passports, travel documents etc.
(1).........
(2) Subject to the other provisions of the Act, the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds and of no other grounds:
(a) ....... to (e)...........
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before the Criminal Court in India.
9. A careful look at Section 6 would show that it deals with two contingencies. The first is about an endorsement for visiting any foreign country. The second is about the issue of a passport. Both are to be traced only to two clauses namely Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 enables the Passport Authority, upon receipt of an application, to issue a passport or travel document with endorsement in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of other countries, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 empowers the Passport Authority to refuse to issue passport or travel document. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 states that where the Passport Authority makes an order under Clause (b) or (c) of sub-section (2), it shall record in writing a bri
SupremeToday
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
