Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar and Surya Kant JJ.
Balwinder Singh
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 7485 of 2004,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
Passport - Issuance of Passport - Passport Act, 1967, Section 22, Section 6(2)(f) - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, particularly Section 22 and Section 6(2)(f), and the interpretation of these provisions in the context of issuance of passports to individuals with pending criminal proceedings. The court emphasizes the fundamental right of citizens to receive a passport, subject to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. It highlights the liberalization of passport issuance provisions through a notification issued by the Central Government, and the court's reliance on previous judgments to support the right to travel abroad as a fundamental protection under the Constitution. The judgment also addresses the responsibility of the passport authorities and the police in processing passport applications and emphasizes the need for expeditious disposal of such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a new passport during the currency of the existing passport, while facing criminal proceedings. The passport authorities did not issue or decline the passport, citing the need for a recommendation from the police authorities. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this inaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's right to receive a passport is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions. It emphasized the liberalization of passport issuance provisions through a notification issued by the Central Government and the right to travel abroad as a fundamental protection under the Constitution. The court also criticized the inaction of the authorities and directed them to consider the application and dispose of it within three months, provided the petitioner presents permission from the relevant court where the criminal proceedings are pending.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's right to receive a passport, the interpretation of the Passport Act provisions, the responsibility of the passport authorities and the police in processing passport applications, and the need for expeditious disposal of such matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental right of citizens to receive a passport, subject to reasonable restrictions as prescribed by law. It highlighted the liberalization of passport issuance provisions through a notification issued by the Central Government and the right to travel abroad as a fundamental protection under the Constitution. The court also stressed the need for expeditious disposal of passport applications and the responsibility of the authorities in processing such matters.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for a passport and dispose of it within three months, provided the petitioner presents permission from the relevant court where the criminal proceedings are pending. The petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Swantaner Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner was holder of Passport No. Q-27936 which was to expire on 8.9.2003. The petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a new passport on 19.8.2002 during the currency of that passport.The petitioner was granted one months Tourist Visa for U.K. till 19.9.2002. He went to U.K. and returned from there before the expiry of the period specified in the Visa. On 4.12.2002, FIR No. 273 was registered against the petitioner and 13 other persons, under Sections 447, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Tanda, on the complaint of one Sh. Kartar Singh. The police investigated the matter and filed its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Illaqa Magistrate on 15.4,2003. In the challan filed, the name of the petitioner was shown in column No. 2.
2. The application submitted by the petitioner for renewal/issuance of the passport was marked by the Regional Passport Officer for enquiry to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. In the report submitted, reference of the case was given, However, no specific police report was submitted in regard to the petitioner by the police authorities to the Passport authorities respondent no.\1.Vide letter dated 11.3.2004 respondent no. I required the petitioner to submit certain documents including ration card etc. as well as Court documents, within 15 days of the issuance of the said letter. On the basis of the report filed in the Court by the police 13 of the accused other than the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. No. 31737-M of 2003, where notice of motion was issued and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. The passport authorities have not passed any order declining the issuance of the passport and have not even issued the passport to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondents is entirely unjustified, arbitrary and beyond the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. Aggrieved from this action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. In reply filed by the respondents, the facts as pleaded by the petitioner are hardly in dispute, the respondents mainly contended that respondent No. 2 and 3 have not rec- ommended the case of the petitioner despite the fact that a specific report was asked for them. It is not denied in the written statement that no passport has either been renewed or fresh passport issued to the petitioner so far.However, while relying upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Deepak Dwarka Singh Chhabria v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1997 Bombay 181 it is contended that the renewal of the passport is possible only if the petitioner takes leave/permission from the concerned criminal Court for travelling outside India.
4. This cannot be disputed that to receive a passport in accordance with law is a fundamental right of a citizen, of course, subject to such reasonable restrictions as are prescribed in law. Under Section 22 of the Act, the Central Government has the power to exempt person or class of persons from operation or not or the provisions contained in the Act. In furtherance to exercise of such power, the Central Government issued a notification on 25.8.1993, which reads as under:-
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. New Delhi the 25th August, 1993. "No, GSR 570(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R.(E), dated the 14th April, 1970, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of su
AI
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
