An individual has the right to renew a passport even if facing a criminal trial, subject to obtaining permission from the concerned court.

JUDGMENT

Ritu Bahri, J. - Through the present petition, the petitioner is seeking directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue him the passport.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued passport No. M1654955 by Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Jalandhar-respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent no.2') on 25.8.2014 which was valid till 24.8.2024. Since the above passport got damaged/mutilated, the petitioner applied for re-issuance of the said passport. The petitioner got involved in FIR No.58 dated 26.7.2016 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Talwandi Chaudhrian. The petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 9.9.2016 (Annexure P-4). The interim bail was made absolute vide order dated 20.2.2017 (Annexure P-5) after the report of the chemical examiner was received since the alleged recovery was of 100 grams of Nitrazepam which is non commercial in nature. However, the passport authorities have refused to re-issue the passport to the petitioner.

3. On notice, reply has been filed by way of affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 i.e Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar. The stand taken in the reply is that the petitioner applied for the re-issuance of the passport by suppressing material information with regard to FIR No.58 dated 26.7.2016 registered under Section 22-61-85 of NDPS Act at PS Talwandi Chaudhrian against the petitioner. The copy of application made by the petitioner for re issuance of the passport is attached with the reply as Annexure R/2-1. In accordance with the process, the case of the petitioner was sent for the police verification. The police authorities had marked the report of the petitioner as 'Adverse' with the remarks that FIR No.58 Dated 26.7.2016 under Section 22-61-85 of NDPS Act Police Station Talwandi Chaudhrian, Distt. Kapurthala registered against the applicant . The copy of the adverse police verification report is attached with the reply as Annexure R/2-2. As per the reply, the passport of the petitioner was held due to his own act and conduct and also by the `adverse' police verification marked by the police authorities(security agencies). The case of the petitioner was again rereferred to the police authorities for the police verification by referring the points as mentioned in letter dated 27.8.2020 followed by ReminderI dated 18.9.2020 (Annexure R/2-3 respectively). The respondent received a response dated 11.9.2020 (Annexure R/2-4) and the police authorities again sent the adverse report. However, the above report due to oversight was taken to be the clear report. Though, it was adverse, the passport came to be issued on the basis of misreading of the adverse report as clear report and in this backdrop, the petitioner has been asked to surrender the passport vide letter dated 7.10.2020 (Annexure R-2/5). It has further been stated in the reply that as per the provisions of the Passport Act and the settled principles of law the passport of the petitioner cannot be released till the above mentioned FIR against the petitioner is not quashed or the clearance is given to the petitioner by the concerned police authorities.

4. Counsel for the respondents has placed on record a notification of the Ministry of External Affairs dated 21/08/2014, wherein it has been stated that whenever any applicant against whom proceedings before a criminal court are pending approaches any Passport Issuing Authority for the passport services, a copy of Gazette notification and proforma undertaking can be given to him/her with a covering letter directing him/her to fulfill the requirements prescribed in the Gazette notification. On submission of the same, his/her passport application may be processed and passport may be issued as per the provisions of the GSR 570 (E) and the contents of the court order.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that passport of a citizen can be seized only