IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28948 of 2008(U) PETITIONER: --------------------- P.H.BAVERU RAWTHER, AGED 60 YEARS,S/O HASSAN BAVA, SIBINA MANZL, SIVANKUNNU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 011. 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), ALUVA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28948 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, along with this wife, made arrangements to go for Hajj Pilgrimage and made an application for the issuance of a passport. That has not been issued. On enquiry, he understood that the police, on verification, submitted a report to the effect that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1260/07 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. Ext.P3 is the final report submitted by the Police before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Muvattupuzha, in Crime No.1260/07. The magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and has numbered the case as C.C.No.206/08 and ordered summons to be issued to the petitioner. 2. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that the allegations against the petitioner is that he had sold a property, having an extent of 3 cents, in favour of PW.1 affirming that the property is not encumbered and that this amounted to cheating, which is punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Apparently, C.C.No.206/08 is posted to 10.11.2008 for appearance of the accused. W.P.(C).NO.28948/08 :: 2 :: 3. No doubt, in terms of Section 6(2)(g) of the Passport Act where a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court, then the Passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport as such. But the nature of the offence, which is alleged against the person and the purpose for which the passport is sought for, are definitely matters, which would be taken into account. I take note of the fact that in Ext.P3 the dispute arises out of a transaction of a property involving the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner has sought for a passport to go on Hajj Pilgrimage. Thirdly, the petitioner's wife has been issued a passport. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in terms of the circular No.299(e) dated 14.4.1976 issued by the Central Government, persons, against whom proceedings are pending before a court, can also be issued a passport or a travel document, subject to the condition that the W.P.(C).NO.28948/08 :: 3 :: concerned court permits to do so. I would have normally required the petitioner to approach the magistrate's court, but for the fact that the matter is posted for his appearance on 10.11.2008. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue to the petitioner a passport to enable him to go on Hajj pilgrimage on or before 15.10.2008. It is made clear that it is open to the 1st respondent to impose a condition that the passport/a travel document, so issued, is only to enable him to go on Hajj pilgrimage. The 1st respondent can also impose a condition requiring the petitioner to surrender the passport, on return from Hajj pilgrimage, before the concerned magistrate's court and produce proof regarding the same. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge