IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Parvez Mohammad Abdul – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 37832 of 2022
Decided On : 26-10-2022
Passport Renewal - Refusal of Passport - Passports Act, 1967, Section 6 - GSR 570(E) Notification - Passport Issuance Guidelines - Apex Court's Interpretation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to declare the inaction of respondent No. 2 in renewing the passport as illegal and for a consequential direction to renew and release the passport. The petitioner, an accused in several crimes, argued that the passport cannot be denied based on the criminal charges. Respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioner is not entitled to renewal based on the Passports Act, 1967, and circular notifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, the GSR 570(E) notification, and the passport issuance guidelines. It referred to the Apex Court's interpretation in a similar case and held that the Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal based on the pendency of criminal cases and the issuance of a rowdy sheet against the petitioner. The court directed respondent No. 2 to consider the application for renewal with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of passport renewal based on the petitioner's criminal cases and the interpretation of the Passports Act, 1967, and related guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Passports Act, 1967, and the GSR 570(E) notification, as well as the Apex Court's ruling in a similar case, which established that the Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal based on the pendency of criminal cases.
Final Decision: The court directed respondent No. 2 to consider the application for renewal with specific conditions, including the submission of an undertaking and affidavit before the trial court, and depositing the renewed passport before the trial court. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a petition before the trial court seeking permission to travel abroad.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Ponnam Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anjali Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondent No. 2 in renewing the passport after submission of application as per the provisions of Act vide application in File No. HY-1074507943922 dated 19.08.2022 as illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondent No. 2 to renew and release the passport.
3. The petitioner herein is the holder of passport bearing No. F3307870. It was expired on 18.04.2015 itself. However, he had filed an application bearing No. HY-1074507943922 on 19.08.2022 with respondent No. 2 to renew his passport. Having received and acknowledged the said application, respondent No. 2 did not act upon the same. Therefore, the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is an accused in several crimes, and on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in the crimes, respondent No. 2 cannot deny passport to the petitioner and it cannot keep the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of passport pending.
5. However, Mrs. Anjali Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2, would submit that the petitioner herein is an accused in eight (08) criminal cases and the said cases are pending before various Courts. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, Rules made thereunder and the Circular Notification No. GSR 570 (E), dated 25.08.1993, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of his passport. According to her, the police have issued rowdy-sheet against the petitioner and they are maintaining the same as on today. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of his passport.
6. In view of the above rival submissions, it is relevant to extract Section-6 of the Passports Act, 1967 and the same is as under:
“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents:
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this 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 on no other ground, namely:
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India.
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country.
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years.
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court.
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation.
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.”
7. It is also relevant to extract the aforesaid Notification No. GSR 570(E), dated 25.08.1993 and the same is as under:
“G.S.R. 570(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal based on the pendency of criminal cases, as interpreted from the Passports Act, 1967, and rela....
The main legal point established is that the pendency of criminal cases should not lead to denial of passport facilities, as per the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, and suppo....
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.