SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52171

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
AADHIL VALIYAKOVILAKAM RASHEED – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 1040/2024



Advocates:
BIJU VIGNESWAR, S.MANU, SREEJITH V.S.

The court directed the petitioner to provide details of a pending criminal case to process the application for a Police Clearance Certificate, emphasizing the importance of transparency in such applications.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 59 - Passport Act, 1967 - Issuance of Police Clearance Certificate for overseas employment - Petitioner applied for Police Clearance Certificate but faced allegations of suppressing a criminal case pending at the time of passport issuance - The court directed the petitioner to provide additional details regarding the FIR for consideration of the application. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 8)

(B) Writ Petition - The petitioner is required to submit a detailed reply regarding the criminal case for the Regional Passport Officer to process the application for Police Clearance Certificate. (Paras 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, holder of a valid Indian Passport, applied for a Police Clearance Certificate for employment in the UAE, but received a notice alleging suppression of a criminal case pending at the time of passport issuance.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to file an additional reply to clarify the circumstances surrounding the criminal case and directed the Regional Passport Officer to process the application upon receipt of necessary materials.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner suppressed information regarding a pending criminal case when obtaining the passport and the implications for the Police Clearance Certificate application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to provide detailed information regarding the FIR to enable the Regional Passport Officer to make an informed decision on the application for the Police Clearance Certificate.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2024 The petitioner is holder of an Indian Passport bearing No.S2913314, which he obtained in the year 2018 and is valid up to 30.05.2028. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Business Administration and has got job opportunity in United Arab Emirates now. As per the present requirement, the petitioner has to submit a Police Clearance Certificate for joining duty.

2. Section 59 of the Kerala Police Act , 2011 provides for the issuance of Police Clearance Certificate. But, these certificates are confined to jobs in Kerala only. As far as overseas employment, it is for the Passport Authority concerned to issue Police Clearance Certificate, as clarified by Ext.P5 Circular issued by the Kerala Police Chief and Ext.P6 judgment of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner applied for Police Clearance Certificate by submitting an online application to the 1st respondent.

3. On 14.12.2023, the petitioner received Ext.P9 notice alleging that he obtained Passport by suppressing pendency of a criminal case and calling upon him to show cause against the initiation of action to impound his Passport under Sections 10(3)(b) and 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act , 1967. The notice also directed to surrender Ext.P3 Passport to the 1st respondent. Since the crime referred was registered only after five years, he was issued with the Passport. So, the allegation that the petitioner suppressed the pendency of the crime is absolutely incorrect.

4. Since permission of the Magistrate Court is required for going abroad, the petitioner obtained permission as per Ext.P10 which also directed the Police to issue Police Clearance Certificate. But, in the light of Ext.P5 Circular and Ext.P6 judgment, it is for the 1st respondent to issue Police Clearance Certificate. The 1st respondent refuses to act upon Ext.P8 application and issue Police Clearance Certificate to the petitioner, contends the Counsel for the petitioner.

5. The Deputy Solicitor General entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. When pendency of a crime was noted, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P9 show cause notice. Though the petitioner submits that the crime registered against the petitioner was subsequent to the issuance of the Passport to him, no materials are projected or made available in Ext.P11 reply. If the petitioner shows that the crime was registered subsequent to the issuance of the Passport, then his application for Police Clearance Certificate can be considered and possibility of issuing a customised Police Clearance Certificate can be considered.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General representing the 1st respondent. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the 2nd respondent.

7. The petitioner would assert that the crime was registered against him subsequent to the issuance of Passport. But, the reply given to Ext.P9, by way of Ext.P11 does not disclose the dates of registration of crime or any particulars of the crime.

8. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file an additional reply to Ext.P9. If the petitioner gives a proper reply to Ext.P9, giving all particulars relating to registration of FIR / crime, then the Regional Passport Officer can very well consider the matter and process the application for issuance of Police Clearance Certificate.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the petitioner to file an additional reply to Ext.P9 within a period of one week disclosing the particulars of FIR / crime registered against the petitioner. The petitioner shall also produce a certified / attested copy of Ext.P10 judgment. If a reply is given producing necessary materials, then the Regional Passport Officer shall process the application for issuance of customised Police Clearance Certificate to the petitioner and take a final decision thereon within a period of two weeks from the da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top