Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
NIZAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. passport renewal application facts (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. application rejection arguments (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directive on reconsideration (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application made on 21.10.2025 for renewal of his passport.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. Through Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the courts concerned had permitted the petitioner to renew the passport for a period of two years and also to travel abroad. However, through Exts.P3 and P4 orders, on the ground that no active visa to travel abroad was produced, the request of the petitioner for permission to travel abroad was rejected.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the DSGI, placing reliance on Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passports Act , 1967 and that the request was not allowed in view of Exts.P3 and P4 orders referred to above.
4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides and taking note of Exts.P1 and P2 orders, and also perusing the reasons stated in Exts.P3 and P4 orders, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the app
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
