The central legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of criminal cases should not automatically lead to the refusal of passport renewal, as the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and the notification No.GSR 570(E) dated 15.8.1993 provide opportunities for renewal subject to certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves the following prayer:

'It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the Petition, admit the same and issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for records from the Court below and after hearing the counsels from both the sides, allow the same and issue directions to Opp. Party No.2 to grant renewal of Petitioner's passport bearing passport No.J0813101 without creating any further hindrance in the greater interest of justice;

And/or pass such other order/s, whichever this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.'

2. Background involving the case is that petitioner being a working professional working in oilfields in the UAE. For the material disclosure in the writ petition, it appears petitioner has a contractual service in a firm in UAE with 30 days renewal basis. Having a passport bearing No. J0813101 already granted, petitioner is continuing with his service on the basis of visa granted by the competent authority going to be expired on 17.05.2022. It is finding the passport going to expire, as a consequence rendering Visa becomes infructuous, petitioner made an application for renewal of the passport to get Visa continuity in order to continue his service in the overseas oilfields. It is averred on the application being filed, petitioner has been served with a communication by the opposite party no.2, Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bhubaneswar thereby declining to entertain the request of the petitioner on the issue of renewal of passport on the shortcomings by way of pendency of 2 criminal cases at least against the petitioner and thus declined to entertain the request of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 herein giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. Being aggrieved by such communication, filing the writ petition, petitioner pleaded that looking to the nature of offence involved and further the complaint involved therein being at the instance of his wife for involvement of difference between the husband and wife. Petitioner claims that until unless there is final outcome in such criminal proceedings, petitioner remaining in the status of accused, mere pendency of such criminal proceedings should not come in the way of the renewal of passport and consequential grant of Visa. It is in the above premises, the writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court to the Passport Authority to allow the renewal of the petitioner's Passport bearing Passport No. J0813101 in facilitating grant of Visa accordingly.

4. Mr.Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the pleadings and the grounds taken therein contended that mere pendency of criminal proceedings and for such proceedings being initiated at the instance of the wife for there is difference between the husband and wife should not have been a ground declining to entertain the renewal application. Mr.Dhal, learned Senior Counsel also contended that in the event there is refusal in renewal of the passport involving the petitioner, petitioner will also become jobless and such action may also create a stigma in the petitioner's getting further employment. It is at this stage of the matter, taking this Court to the provision at Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and the notification No.GSR 570(E) dated 15.8.1993 issued by the competent authority and further relying on catena of decisions in the cases of Navin Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., I.L.R. (2018) M.P.677, Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs. Union of India Ministry of External Affairs, represented by its Principal Secretary and Others. 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3437, Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (I.A.No.52346/ 2021 in Crl.A.No.1343/2017) decided on 27.09.2021, in the case of Hardik Shah Vs. Union of India and A