*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY +Writ Petition No.27295 of 2006 % 02-08-2010 # Smt.Deepa Paresh Chedda, W/o Paresh Chedda, Barkatpura, Hyderabad …Petitioner Vs. $ The Secretary to Government, External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Raja Gopalan Tavi Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Ashok Goud (Asst. Solicitor General) Mr. T.K.Sreedhar <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: AIR 1997 BOMBAY 181 (1) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.27295 of 2006 (Dated : 02-08-2010) Between: Smt.Deepa Paresh Chedda, W/o Paresh Chedda, Barkatpura, Hyderabad …Petitioner A n d The Secretary to Government, External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.27295 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Deepa Paresh Chedda seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the Regional Passport Officer-2nd respondent in detaining/retaining her passport bearing No.A 215091 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Hyderabad having been born and brought up therein. The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad-2nd respondent issued a passport bearing No.A 215091 to her. The passport is valid up to 22.10.2000. She made an application on 12.12.2000 for renewal of her passport. There being no action on her renewal application, she got issued a legal notice dated 02.01.2006. The office of the Regional Passport Officer issued a reply dated 20.2.2006 stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No. Rc.No.3/E/99 BS & FC on the file of CBI, New Delhi registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409 and 420 IPC and that the C.B.I has not informed them regarding the present status of the case and hence her application for renewal of passport has been kept in abeyance. Hence, this writ petition with a prayer stated supra. 3. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras 5 to 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder:- “5. It is submitted that when the said Crl.M.P.No.346/2004 came up for hearing the learned Judge directed me to furnish an undertaking. Annexure to the present Writ Petition is a copy of the undertaking of affidavit given by me before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in which I have clearly stated that I undertake not to leave the country without prior information to the Hon’ble Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad. This affidavit/undertaking was executed by me on 14-12-2001 and the following order was passed: “Since the accused had given an undertaking not to leave India, the petition is closed”. 6. It will thus be obvious that there is no direct order of any court leave alone the CBI Court either for depositing my passport or surrendering my passport in any fashion. The only condition imposed is that prior to leaving the country I have to obtain prior permission from the concerned Court. Despite the specific orders the 2nd respondent has detained my passport for reasons best known to him. 7. I state that having waited for a period of six years from the date of submitting my passport for renewal ultimately I was constrained to got issued a legal notice through my counsel Dt.02-01-2006 which was dispatched on 4-1-2006 and received by the 2nd respondent on 20-01-2006. Annexure to the present writ petition is the proof of dispatch and proof of receipt by the 2nd respondent of the notice dt.2-1-2006. That the 2nd respondent after a period of one month on 20-2- 2006 issued a reply to the legal notice got issued by me in which the only following observation has been made “In this regard it is informed that we have not received any information from CBI regarding the present status of the case. Hence your case been kept at abeyance”. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 02.1.2007. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mere registration of the crime is not a bar for renewal of passport, and therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the renewal application in abeyance is contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. A further submission has been made that necessary direction is required to be given to the 2nd respondent herein to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of her passport and pass appropriate orders. 7. The undisputed facts that emerge from the material placed on record are:- The petitioner herein is A-4 in case No. Rc.No.3/E/99 BS & FC/CBI/New Delhi registered for the offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 471 IPC. She appeared before the CBI Court and thereupon, prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.346 of 2004 seeking direction to the petitioner not to leave the country without permission of the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases as well as to surrender passport to CBI. The said application has been disposed of by the CBI Court on 14.12.2001. The order passed in the said application reads as hereunder:- “ Since the accused had given an undertaking not to leave India, the petition is closed: 8. The petitioner submitted application to the 2nd respondent seeking renewal of her passport. The 2nd respondent kept the renewal application in abeyance since no information has been received from the CBI regarding the present status of the case. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that pendency of criminal case is not a bar for renewal of passport and therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping the renewal application in abeyance cannot be justified. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed in judgment of Bombay High Court in Deepak Dwarakasingh Chhabria v. Union of India[1]. 9. As seen from the above-referred judgment, the Government of India, by notification dated 25th August, 1993 granted exemption to the citizens against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a Criminal Court in India and who produce order from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause(f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely, (a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued; (i) for the period specified in order of the Court referred to above, if the Court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the Court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the Court is not canceled or modified; (c ) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh, order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport authority that he shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.” 10. In the above-referred decision, after referring the notification dated 25th August, 1993, the following observation has been made: “10. In view of the aforesaid notifications by the Central Government, it is clear that the citizens against whom criminal cases are pending are made exempt from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) provided they produce orders from the concerned Court permitting them to travel abroad subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the notifications. In other words, an application of passport is not liable to be refused on the ground of pendency of criminal case if the applicant obtains permission from the concerned Criminal Court for traveling outside India. The passport authority, therefore cannot reject the application for passport mechanically on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the applicants. It will be the duty of the passport authority to bring the relevant notification to apply to the concerned Criminal Court for permission to travel abroad. If the applicant obtains such permission from the Criminal Court where his case is pending, the passport authority will be duty bound to issue the passport in terms of the order of the Criminal Court subject to the conditions of the notification. In the present case the passport authority has failed to bring the relevant notification to the notice of the applicant in spite of the fact that the application was pending before the authority for more than one-and-half years. In fact, it is doubtful whether the passport authority himself was aware of the notification granting exemption to the citizens from the operation of Section 6(2)(f). It is matter of regret that applications are kept pending by the passport authority for such a long time particularly, when it affects the fundamental right of the citizen. At no point of time the passport authority had informed the petitioner that he was entitled to passport subject to orders of the Criminal Court. The Passport authority has also failed to give information or particulars about the pending criminal case. It is an admitted position that till today the petitioner is not served with the summons of the pending criminal case. In such a situation, it was all the more necessary for the passport authority to inform the petitioner of his right to apply to the Criminal Court for permission to travel abroad. In my opinion, it is necessary to issue specific directions to the passport authority in order to ensure that the citizens’ application for passport are not unnecessarily delayed on account of pending criminal cases. Accordingly, it is directed that in all cases covered by Section 6(2)(f), the passport authority shall forthwith inform the applicant about his right to apply to the concerned Criminal Court for permission to travel abroad in terms of the notification dated 25th August, 1993. In case the applicant demands a copy of the notification, same shall be supplied by the passport authority subject to payment of charges. Needless to mention that it will be open for the applicant to approach the Criminal Court, where criminal case against him is pending, for permission to travel out of India. Even if he has not received summons from the Criminal Court, it will be open, for the applicant to apply to that Court for a limited purpose of issuing the necessary orders for grant and/or renewal of passport. Considering the fact that the matter involves the fundamental right of the applicant, the concerned Court shall decide such application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of such application, after notice to the prosecution. In case the Criminal Court passes an order for issuance of passport, the passport authority shall forthwith issue the passport to the applicant subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification but without making any endorsement on the passport about the pending criminal case”. 11. It is evident from the notification dated 25th August, 1993, an applicant against whom a criminal case is pending, is required to obtained necessary permission from the Criminal Court and then make an application to the passport authority. Indisputably, the petitioner is an accused in Case No. Rc.No.3/E/99 BS & FC/CBI/New Delhi in which case, the petitioner has to obtain necessary permission from the Criminal Court and thereafter, make an application to the 2nd respondent. As on this day, the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the Criminal Court so as to enable her to get the passport renewed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to obtain necessary permission from the Criminal Court as provided in the notification dated 25th August, 1993, and then make an application to the 2nd respondent for renewal of her passport. In the event of submitting necessary application after obtaining necessary permission from the Criminal Court, the 2nd respondent has to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of such an application. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.02-08-2010 Note:- L.R Copy to be marked (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.27295 of 2006 (Dated : 02-08-2010) [1] AIR 1997 BOMBAY 181(1)