JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The Petitioner is an Indian national having a valid Indian passport bearing No. Txxxxxx2 (masked for privacy concerns) issued by the Regional Passport Office in Delhi, India. This passport has been renewed and is valid up to 01st May, 2029.

2. The Petitioner, along with his proprietary concern, M/s Bedi & Bedi Associates, is currently facing two FIRs — No. 15/2013 and No. 58/2013 — registered at P.S. Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. These FIRs were filed based on complaints from Enforcement Officers of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, alleging that while the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12597/2024 Page 1 of 9 Petitioner deducted Provident Fund1 contributions from the wages of employees working at DMRC and NPL sites, he failed to deposit the same in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 19522.

3. Post registration of the FIRs, a quasi-judicial enquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act was conducted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North)3. This inquiry culminated in an order dated 28th September, 2019 under Section 7A of the EPF Act to the effect that both the Petitioner and the Principal Employer were jointly and severally liable to deposit the PF contributions as mandated by the EPF Act. Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of INR 7,485,753/- as assessed by the RPFC. This amount was duly paid by the Petitioner through a demand draft dated 20th March, 2019. Further, the Petitioner has filed petitions seeking the quashing of the aforementioned FIRs, which are pending consideration before this Court.

4. In light of the aforenoted background, the Petitioner’s grievance stems from the Respondents’ refusal to issue a Police Clearance Certificate4 which is a crucial requirement for applying under the Start-up Visa Programme at Canada, where the Petitioner intends to set up a business venture. According to Canadian Visa regulations, an applicant must submit a PCC from their country of residence to set up a business in Canada. In compliance with this requirement, the Petitioner submitted an application dated 15th April, 2024 with the Regional Passport Office for the issuance of the said PCC. This was

1 “PF”

2 “EPF Act”

3 “RPFC”

4 “PCC”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12597/2024 Page 2 of 9 followed by a fresh application on 14th May, 2024 for the same purpose.

5. In order to address the objections of the Respondents, the Petitioner also approached the Trial Court where the criminal case against him is pending, seeking directions to the Regional Passport Office for the issuance of PCC. However, this request was denied on 26th June, 2024 with the Trial Court noting that it lacked the jurisdiction to issue such directions.

6. In view of this background, through the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for the issuance of the PCC. Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Arora, draws attention to multiple decisions from other High Courts that have addressed similar issues regarding the issuance of PCCs. He particularly relies on a judgment by the Kerala High Court dated 16th September, 2021, passed in W.P.(C) 17201/2024 titled “Siju v.

Regional Passport Officer”5, wherein the Court had ruled as follows:

“5. It is evident from the specimen referred to above that a person is entitled to Police Clearance Certificate, only if there is no adverse information which would render him/her ineligible for grant of travel facilities. There Is no dispute to the fact that the pendency of a criminal case is not a reason which would render a person Ineligible for grant of travel facilities in India. The requirement of law is that if there is a criminal case pending, one.is entitled to travel only with the permission of the court before which the case is pending. As far as the pr