IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 685 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5253/2011 Dated 27/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- BIJU SHAMSUDEEN KUNJU, S/O.SHAMSUDEEN KUNJU, AGED 34, EDAPPALLIL PUTHENVEEDU, EDAPPALLIL COTTA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM, KERALA, NOW R/AT AL-HANDAZA BUILDING, DOHA, QATAR REP.BY P/A MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O.JUNUS KUNJU, AGED 66, R/AT NITHAS, EDAPPALLIL COTTA P.O.,CHAVARA, KOLLAM,KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PASSPORT OFFICE, S.N.S.M. BUILDING, KAITHAMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ASST.S.G OF INDIA SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: amk. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 685 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 5253 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner in WPC 5253 of 2011 which was dismissed by judgment dated 27th June, 2011 is the review petitioner. 2. The writ petition was filed when the petitioner was called upon to surrender his passport based on an adverse police report indicating that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.190/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. Taking note of the said fact and in view of the provisions contained in S.6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, this court held that the respondents are justified in calling upon the petitioner to surrender the passport. It is seeking review of the said judgment this petition is filed. R.P. No. 685 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 5253 OF 2011 :2 : 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and in view of S.6(2)(f) of the Act, I do not see any error in the judgment warranting its review. Still fact remains that the Government of India has issued notification No.G.S.R. 570 (E) dated 25.8.1993 stating that a person like the petitioner can seek orders from the Court which is dealing with the criminal case and if a favourable order is passed, the provisions of S.6(2)(f) will not be implemented. This position stand clarified in the decision reported in Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala 2009 (2) KLT 712. 4. In view of the above I dispose of the review petition with the following directions. (1) It will be open to the review petitioner to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally which is seized of C.C.190/2009 in which the petitioner is an accused, for orders as indicated above. R.P. No. 685 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 5253 OF 2011 :3 : (2) If the Magistrate passes order enabling the petitioner to retain his passport, then the petitioner shall produce the same before the 2nd respondent, who thereupon shall pass orders in terms of the order passed by the court. (3) In order to enable the petitioner to apply to the Magistrate as above and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is employed abroad, I direct that all further proceedings for surrender of the passport shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks from today. The judgment in the writ petition is modified to the above extent. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge