IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34342 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SALAHUDEEN ABDULRASHEED AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.FATHIMA BEEVI VARVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARIBINTHODY,KURAKKODU KULLAYIL PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- PIN -24 2. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION KOCHI BRANCH REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CBI ACB) COCHIN PIN- 17 3. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT REP BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,NEW DELHI, THROUGH THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S. NAMBOOTHIRY, SC FOR CBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34342 of 2010 P ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 FIR was registered against the petitioner on 03-06-2006. Subsequently, on 04-09-2006, petitioner made an application to the first respondent for the issuance of a passport. According to the petitioner, at that stage, he was unaware of the FIR or that he was an accused and, therefore, he did not mention about the pendency of the crime in the application made for issuance of the passport. Therefore, on 10-10-2006, without knowing about the pendency of the criminal case, first respondent issued passport No.91273400 to the petitioner. 2. Subsequently, Ext.P2 notice dated 10-02-2009 was issued to the petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner had suppressed material information in the application made for grant of passport and that, therefore, the passport is liable to be impounded. On that basis, he was called to show cause W.P.(C) No.34342/10 : 2 : why the passport should not be impounded. Petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P2 notice, he submitted Ext.P3 reply, denying the allegations in Ext.P2. 3. According to the petitioner, though Ext.P5 FIR has been registered and his passport was also seized by the CBI, by Ext.P7 order passed by the CBI Court, the passport was ordered to be released to him. He also relies on Ext.P9 notification issued by the Government of India and Ext.P10 judgment of this Court to contend that the passport is not liable to be impounded. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, on instructions, submits that in the application made by the petitioner, he had not mentioned about the pendency of the criminal case and that if he had mentioned about the case, he would not have been issued a passport in view of the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. It is also stated that Ext.P3 reply filed by the petitioner in response to Ext.P2 was received by the first respondent only W.P.(C) No.34342/10 : 3 : on 10-11-2010 and that the issue is being considered by the first respondent. 5. Admittedly, petitioner was an accused on the date when he made an application for the passport and if he had mentioned that fact, he would not have been issued a passport in view of the provisions contained in section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. However, in the aforesaid circumstances, the first respondent has issued passport to the petitioner and when he came to know of the criminal case, Ext.P2 notice has been issued. Irrespective of the delay involved, it is also a fact that the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 reply which has been received by the first respondent and, therefore, it is for the first respondent to consider the matter and take a decision in the matter. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is premature. 6. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the first respondent shall decide on Ext.P2, in the light of Ext.P3, with notice to the petitioner and giving him an W.P.(C) No.34342/10 : 4 : opportunity to produce Ext.P7 order passed by the CBI Court or other materials which he may consider relevant. It is made clear that it will also be open to the petitioner to apply to the CBI Court for an order in terms of Ext.P9 and it is clarified that if the petitioner succeeds in obtaining such an order, it will be open to the petitioner to produce the same also before the first respondent. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge