Zakir Hussain vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. Mayur Mundra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.Mangulal, learned Government Pleader for Central Government, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition reads as under:

“to issue writ of Mandamus or any other proper writ or other order or direction declaring that the act of respondent No.2 in not considering renewal of the passport bearing No.H8390740 bearing renewal application No.20-1002561833, dated 15.03.2020, of the petitioner on the guise of pendency of C.C.NO.5004/2020, for offences under 324, 452, 403, 147,148 r/w 149 IPC, C.C.No.13194/2019 for offences under 448, 506 r/w section 34 of I.P.C and C.C. No.928/2019 for offences under section 148, 448,457,452, 341, 427, 506, 109, 384 r/w section 149 of IPC pending before the Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad is illegal and arbitrary and consequently thereby directing the respondent No.2 to renew the Passport of petitioner vide Renewal Application No.20-1002561833, dated 15.03.2020 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

A perusal of the record would reveal that, the petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.5213 of 2020, C.C.No.5004 of 2020, C.C. No.13194 of 2019 and C.C.No.928 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein has submitted an application for renewal of passport vide application No. 20-10002561833, dated 15.03.2020 by paying requisite fee. The respondents herein are not issuing passport on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases against the petitioner.

The petitioner approached the office of the 2nd Respondent Authority many times asking about the status of his passport application, but there is no response. However, the officials of respondent No.2 informed the petitioner orally to get permission from the Court for renewal of his passport.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner herein was falsely implicated in the aforesaid crimes. Further, that the petitioner is also ready to co-operate with the trial. Therefore, the petitioner sought to issue necessary directions to the respondents for consideration of his application to renew his passport.

Respondent No.2 cannot deny renewal of Passport on the ground that aforesaid Criminal Case is pending against her. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B of the IPC and also Section - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew/issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case.

As discussed above, the aforesaid criminal cases are pending against the petitioner herein. He had submitted an application on 15-03-2020 for renewal of his passport and the Respondent No.2 is not considering the application for issuance of passport on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases against the petitioner. On the ground of pendency of the proceedings in criminal cases, respondent No.2 cannot deny for issuance of passport to the petitioner herein. There is no provision in the Passports Act or Rules/Regulations that passport cannot be granted on the ground of pendency of criminal cases. In view of the same, respondent No.2 cannot deny or refuse to renew the passport of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondent No.2 herein to consider the application No.20-1002561833, dated 15.03.2020 submitted by the petitioner herein seeking renewal of his passport on the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in C.C.No.5213 of 2020, CC.No.5004 of 2020, C.C.No.13194 of 2019 and C.c.No.928 of 2019 pending on the file Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, stating that he shall not leave India during pendency of the said C.Cs. without permission of the Court and that he shall co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said C.Cs.

ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks there from;

iii) The petitioner herein shall submit an application afresh along with certified copy of this order as well as the aforesaid undertaking before the Passport Officer/ Authority concerned for renewal of passport;

iv) On filing such an application, the Passport Officer/Authority shall consider the same afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of passport, in accordance with law, within three (03) weeks from the date of said application;

v) Respondent No.2 shall consider Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1967 while considering the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner.

vi) On issuance of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the same before the trial Court in Crl. M.P.No.1194 of 2023 in C.C.No.5213 of 2020; and

vii) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad, and it is for the learned Magistrate to consider the same in accordance with law.

With these observations, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.