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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62795

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RESHMA RAJENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
['G S KRISHNAN KARTHA', '', 'SRI LIJIN THAMBAN', 'SRI M RETHEESHKUMAR']

Admit. The learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the

respondent.

2. The petitioner was issued a passport under directions of this

Court in W.P(C) No.10264 of 2017 vide judgment dated 24.03.2017 at

Annexure-A2. That passport was subsequently renewed vide order

dated 18.09.2018 of the learned Magistrate at Annexure-A3. However,

there was a direction that she shall appear before the Court as and

when required and at any rate she shall surrender her passport on or

before 18.03.2019. Though the validity of the passport was permitted

to be renewed for six months, the Passport Authorities had issued the

passport for one year, and therefore, it was not surrendered on

18.03.2019 inadvertently. Thereafter, the petitioner sought

permission to go abroad and also to renew her passport but vide

impugned order at Annexure-A5 dated 27.09.2019, the learned

Magistrate dismissed her application for the sole reason that she did

not surrender the passport as per Annexure-A3 order on 18.03.2019. It

is now admitted that the petitioner had renewed the passport for one

3

year and before the expiry of that passport she is ready to surrender

it. There were a total of six cases against the petition

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top