VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1545 OF 2008 Abubaker Yusuf Teli ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors... Respondents Mr. O. A. Siddiqui & Rajendra Rathod, for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent No.1. Mr. H. V. Mehta for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2008. PC :- 1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application for seeking passport on 8th May, 2003. His grievance is that this application has not been decided. 2. The petitioner was involved in TADA case being Special Case No.29 of 1994, 3 of 1995 and 13 to 1995. He was acquitted on 24th August, 1998 in TADA Special Case Nos. 29 of 1994 and 3 of 1995. The Supreme Court upheld the order of acquittal dated 24th August - 2 - 1998 by the order dated 8th August 2002. He filed the application for passport. The petitioner maintained that he was never communicated as to what happened to his passport application. Today the counsel for the respondent has produced the copy of a letter addressed to the petitioner, dated 20th November, 2003, which reads as under- "Please refer to your application dated 08.05.2003 regarding grant of passport facilities to you. Your case is "Not Recommended" by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, SB-II, CID, Mumbai for the issue of passport. Therefore, it has been decided not to grant passport facilities to you." 3. Although the report "Not Recommended" by the Dy. Commissioner of Police has not been shown to us, it appears that while rejecting the passport application of the petitioner, pendency of the case under TADA was taken into consideration by the concerned officer. Since already number of years have passed after the acquittal of the petitioner, the officers of the respondent are not justified in not considering passport application of the petitioner on its own merits. - 3 - 4. We decline to go into merits of the allegations made in this case. However, we are granting liberty to the petitioner to move fresh application for issuance of passport. Said application shall be decided by the concerned Passport Officer within a period of two weeks. If the application is allowed, petitioner shall be issued passport, and if it is not allowed, the petitioner shall be communicated the reasoned order. 5. In view of aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]