IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17269 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SIYAD SAINULABDEEN, S/O.SAINULABDEEN, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIYAD MANZIL, KARIMBUVILA, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MS. MAJIDA.S MR. K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FOR HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, S.N.S.M.BUILDING, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 182. R1 AND R3 BY A S G OF INDIA MR. PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO., 17269 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.06.2011 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY PETIITONER DATED 15.06.2011 TO THE PASSPORT OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM, PASSPORT OFFICE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2011 IN CRL, M.C. NO. 206/2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 17269 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext. P1 communication issued by the third respondent on 06.06.2011, whereby the request made by him to have the passport renewed is declined, referring to pendency of a criminal case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working abroad and in view of expiry of the passport, an application was preferred for renewal. There is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife, who has filed some proceedings raising some wild allegations, involving the offence under Section 498 (A) of IPC. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is totally innocent and that the said proceedings have been caused to be filed by the wife, only to harass the petitioner. On receipt of Ext. P1, the factual position was sought to be explained by the petitioner by submitting Ext. P2, simultaneously pointing out that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the concerned Sessions Court as borne by Ext. P3 order. No condition is stated as imposed by the W.P. (C) No. 17269 of 2011 : 2 : said Court in relation to the passport. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the passport renewed; submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submits that, in view of the statutory prescriptions, no passport is liable to be issued or renewed, if any criminal case is pending, unless the party concerned produces necessary clearance from the concerned Magistrate's Court, where the matter is pending. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Asok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 712), where the relevant Circular issued by the Government is also been referred to, while explaining the course to be pursued. 4. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - II, Neyyattinkara, where the matter is pending, by filing necessary application for getting the clearance as above. If any such application is preferred by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application. If clearance is given by the W.P. (C) No. 17269 of 2011 : 3 : concerned Magistrate's Court, the third respondent shall consider the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of his passport, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of such application, with the clearance as aforesaid. The Writ petition is disposed. Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd