IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24828 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MAMMASRAYILLATH ABOOBACKER, MAMMASRAYILATH, SANTHI ROAD, VADANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE AMBASSADOR/CONSULAR GENERAL, EMBASSY OF INDIA, PO BOX NO.1450, DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, ARABIAN GULF STREET, SAFARAT 13015, KUWAIT. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-36. BY ADV. SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.24828 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the father of a person who is presently at Kuwait. The validity of his passport has expired. He applied for renewal of the passport before the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is refusing to renew the passport on the ground that the petitioner's son is facing trial in criminal case in India. The petitioner would submit that the pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport since it was pending that criminal case, the petitioner's son travelled to Kuwait earlier. Passport was also renewed in 1998 while that criminal case was still pending. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibits P4 and P6 to issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ quashing the same; (ii) To declare that the passport of the son of the petitioner MAMMASRAYILLATH ABOOBACKER SAHEER bearing No.A.4551306 is not liable to be impounded under s.10(3)(e) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967. (iii) To issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to either renew the passport of the son of the petitioner as requested in Ext.P2 and P3 or direct the 1st Respondent to give necessary directions to issue a Short w.p.c.24828/08 2 validity passport or any other travel document to enable the son of the petitioner to go to India.” 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, the respondents are not in a position to renew the passport of the petitioner's son. But, by Ext.R2(b), they have offered an appropriate emergency certificate which is a travel document to enable the petitioner's son to travel back to India to attend the court proceedings. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that no further relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition other than what has been offered in Ext.R2(b), at present. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to give the petitioner the relief offered by Ext.R2(b) in order to enable the petitioner's son to travel back to India. If, in the court proceedings the petitioner's son gets appropriate relief, it would be open to him to apply for renewal of the passport thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.24828/08 3