IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13167 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- AKEEL ZAFAR CHEMMAD PUTHIYAPURAYIL, S/O. AMEER ALI CHENAD PUTHIYAPURAYIL, NOOR MAHAL, MANIKOTH.P.O, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.8A, 1818J/40, ABAD BAY PRIDE TOWER, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN SRI.N.C.ALEXANDER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFIARS, PATTIALA HOUSE, THILAK MARK, NEW DELHI - 11. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD - 671 121. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 13167 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the stand taken by the respondents in not accepting Ext. P7 for issuance of passport referring to the pendency of criminal case, which the petitioner himself has conceded before the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court because of laxity on the part of the respondents, however, the said writ petition was sought to be withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this Court again. 2. After curing all the defects, a proper application as borne by Ext. P7 has been submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent on 02.05.2011, clearly mentioning the pendency of the criminal case, but then also the same was not accepted, stating that, unless and until clearance is obtained W.P.(C) No. 13167 OF 2011 2 from the concerned Court, the application cannot be accepted, which according to the petitioner is not correct or proper. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the earlier application preferred by the petitioner was closed as per Ext.P6, for not producing the clearance from the Court, where the criminal case has been pending. It is stated that, there is no problem for accepting Ext. P7, but if Court clearance is not there, it has to be again closed, as the respondents will not be in a position to process and proceed with the application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to approach the concerned Court (i.e., Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc-III) Kasaragod) where S.C.No.645 of 2010 is pending, for obtaining clearance and that the respondents may be directed to accept Ext. P7 and process the same, subject to production of clearance as above. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to accept Ext. P7 and take further steps, on production of necessary clearance to be W.P.(C) No. 13167 OF 2011 3 obtained from the Sessions Court as mentioned above. Appropriate orders shall be passed, finalising the proceedings within one month from the date of production of clearance as aforesaid. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk