IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30531 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O MUKUNDAN, KALATHERA HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY POST. KANNUR- 670 565. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, ERANJIPPALAM, KOZHIKKODE. 673 303 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CRIME DETACHMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH R2 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 30531 of 2011(N) --------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------ PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------- EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP 1930/11 IN C.C. 100/11 DTD. 10.08.11 CJM COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF HTE CERTIFICATE DTD. 06.09.2011 ISSUED FROM THE CJM COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PASSPORT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30531 of 2011 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner made Ext.P3 application for the issuance of a passport. According to the petitioner, although he is an accused in C.C.No.100/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the court itself having passed Ext.P1 order permitting him to obtain a passport, the ineligibility provided in Section 6(2)(f) is inapplicable in his case and, therefore, passport should be ordered to be issued. 2. However, Standing Counsel for the first respondent raises two objections. One is that, in Ext.P3 application itself, it is mentioned that the petitioner has already been issued a passport which is valid till 25.10.2012 and that, in the absence of the petitioner made an application for its revocation, the first respondent cannot issue another passport. It is also submitted that, in the W.P.(C) No.30531/2011 : 2 : application no mention has been made about the criminal case in which Ext.P1 order has been passed by the court. It is therefore submitted that Ext.P3 application cannot be considered. 3. I find substance in the objections raised by the Standing Counsel for the respondent. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in directing that Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner will be considered. Be that as it may, it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application enclosing Ext.P1 and also simultaneously apply for revocation of the passport which is already issued to him. If these requirements are satisfied by the petitioner, the first respondent shall process the application and deal with the same in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/16/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge