Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22066 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:
SOBY GEORGE AGED 54 YEARS S/O.LATE KORA GEORGE, KAKKANATU (H), NELLIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM BY ADVS.
SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, 'A WING', JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHAVAN, 23D, JANAPATH, NEW DELHI 110 011
2 THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN 682 036 BY ADV P.VIJAYAKUMAR JAISHANKAR V.NAIR CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
==========================
W.P.(C)No.22066 of 2021 ==========================
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2021
['SABU S KALLARAMOOLA', '', 'LEEJOY MATHEW V', 'P VIJAYAKUMAR']
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks for a direction to renew the passport of the petitioner. Petitioner’s existing passport bear the No.J5796048, which expired on 26.2.2021. He applied for renewal of his passport. However, by Ext.P7 intimation, it was informed by the passport issuing authority that petitioner had suppressed the existence of Crime No.1160/2020 before the Kothamangalam Police Station, pending as ST 1677/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam. It was further directed that petitioner must furnish an explanation regarding the circumstances, in which he had suppressed the pendency of the criminal case.
2. Petitioner claims that he has not suppressed any information, since even as on date, petitioner has not been served with any summons under the proceedings and therefore, by no strech of imagination can the petitioner be presumed to be aware about the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
3. I have heard Adv.Sabu S, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Adv. Jaishankar V Nair, learned Central Government Counsel.
4. Admittedly a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, though the summons has not yet been served on him. On an appreciation of the factual circumstances that has arisen in this case, I am of the view that the remedy of the petitioner is to obtain permission from the Magistrate Court, as per the propositions of law laid own in [Thadevoose Sebastian Vs. The Regional Passport OfÏce [2021 (5) KLT 531].
5. Further, if the petitioner has not been served with the summons till date, the passport issuing authority cannot assume that the petitioner was aware about the pendency of the criminal case before the Magistrate Court at the time of applying for the passport. However, petitioner is bound to explain it to the Authority.
6. With the above observations, I relegate the petitioner to obtain the required permission from the Magistrate Court concerned, for the purpose of enabling the respondents to process the application for issuance of passport. Further, petitioner is also given the liberty to submit appropriate explanation to Ext.P12 notwithstanding the explanation already offered as Ext.P11. Needless to mention, if such permission is obtained and the explanation offered, the 2nd respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, in a time bound manner.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
