THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7249 of 2010 Dated 31st March 2010 Between: Duvadda Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner And: 1. The Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office, Visakhapatnam And another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Satyanarayana Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P.Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General Counsel for respondent No 2: Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 07.12.2009, passed by respondent No.1, whereby he refused to issue duplicate passport to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to Section 22 (a) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, representing respondent No.1. The petitioner claims to be a businessman, whose passport expired on 25.08.2009. He averred that on his application for renewal of his passport, respondent No.1 informed him that the passport was damaged on account of water drops and accordingly, he was advised to apply for a duplicate passport. The petitioner is stated to have applied for a duplicate passport vide his application, dated 09.09.2009, by paying prescribed fees. By the impugned communication, the petitioner was informed that as three criminal cases are pending, his application for issuance of duplicate passport is rejected in view of sub-clause (f) of Section 6 (2) (c) of the Act. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India[1] case, the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Act, issued notification, dated 16.08.1997, exempting citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before any criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of Section 6 (2) (c) of the Act, subject to the conditions prescribed in clauses (a) and (b) contained in the circular. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that in view of the said circular, the petitioner has a right to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the criminal cases are stated to be pending and that once the permission is granted by the Magistrate concerned to the petitioner to leave the country, respondent No.1 is bound to issue passport to him. Learned counsel further argued that out of the three cases referred to in the communication, C.C.No.326 of 2009 pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was compounded by the criminal Court on 09.10.2009 and that C.C.No.561 of 2008 pertains to a petty traffic offence, which is pending. He further stated that the petitioner is not aware of C.No.555/1/C21/CID/09, dated 28.05.2009, of Tuni Town Police Station, referred to in the impugned communication. After hearing the learned Standing Counsel, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Deepak Dwarkasingh Chhabria V. Union of India[2], the Bombay High Court had an occasion to deal with a case involving similar facts, wherein the Court considered notification, dated 16.08.1979, issued by the Government of India and quashed the order of rejection passed by the passport authority. The Court has given liberty to the petitioner therein to make application before the Court in which the criminal case was pending for obtaining permission to leave the country and directed the Passport Officer to consider the petitioner’s application for issue of passport in the event of the Court granting permission in favour of the petitioner therein. Similar is the case decided by Gujarat High Court in Dhiren Baxi V. Regional Passport Officer[3]. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the criminal cases are said to be pending. If the petitioner obtains permission from the learned Magistrate concerned for leaving the country, he is entitled to make a fresh application to respondent No.1, in which event, his application shall be considered by him and appropriate decision shall be taken, in the light of the observations contained in this order. If the petitioner makes an application before the Magistrate concerned, the same shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks and respondent No.1 shall also take a decision within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of the application along with the permission of the Magistrate concerned. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9356 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 31st March 2010 dr [1] 1978 AIR 597 [2] AIR 1997 Bombay 181(1) [3] AIR 2003 Gujarat 108