Pendency of criminal proceedings bars the re-issuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967; exceptions are subject to specific court orders.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. That, the vide Annexure- L is the endorsement passed by the Respondent dated 22/04/2025 in bearing no. DSB/GADAG/RI.PASS/AARJI/2024-2025 may kindly be quashed by way of writ of certiorari.

B. That, issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondent to consider the Representation/ Appeal of the Petitioner dated 19/04/2025 in vide Annexure K.

C. Any other orders may kindly be passed as it deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Al. Hussain Shaliban for the petitioner and the learned AGA Sri.T.Hanumareddy appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner intends to travel to the United Arab Emirates; however, the same has not been permitted. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner’s passport has expired and he has submitted an application seeking renewal of the passport. The said application has not been considered on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Sri.Ayub Nadimulla, the petitioner’s son-in-law has registered about 15 cases against petitioner and his family members and therefore, he is caught in the crossfire without a passport being issued to him on the score of pendency of those cases against the family.

5. In the light of the pendency of the cases, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police has not issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for renewal of the petitioner’s passport. While the petitioner cannot get a regular validity passport to travel, nonetheless would get a short-validity passport in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of SANTHOSH BEEJADI SRINIVASA vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in Writ Petition No.24269 of 2023, disposed on 04.12.2023, wherein it has held as follows:

“The petitioner is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question acknowledgment dated 20-09-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent/Regional Passport Office declining to issue a normal validity passport for a period of ten years to the petitioner, on its re-issuance.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner is an employee working in the cadre of Senior Manager (Process and Planning) at Mann+Hummel Filter Private Limited, Tumakuru. The petitioner was issued a normal passport like any citizen of the nation which was to be valid for a period of ten years from 11-04-2014 to 10-04- 2024. During the said period the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 182 r/w 34 of the IPC. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and his father and wife are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3. The said proceedings are pending trial in S.C.No.28 of 2017 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. When the crime was registered, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order dated 27-04- 2015, imposing certain conditions permitted travel of the petitioner by directing him to obtain prior permission at every point of travel from the Court of Sessions. It appears that the petitioner has at every point in time sought permission and travelled abroad on his work.

3. The issue in the present case is not concerning permission to travel. As observed hereinabove, the validity of the passport issued to the petitioner on 11-04-2014 would expire on 10-04-2024. The petitioner possesses a Schengen VISA which is valid up to 26-08-2014 but he is not permitted to travel on the score that validity of the passport has come down to less than six months. Therefore, he makes an application for re-issuance of the passport. The application is returned by declining re-issuance on hold on account of criminal case pending trial before the competent Court. This is communicated to the petitioner through an acknowledgement letter which is impugned in the subjec