THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15891 OF 2010 Dated: 09.06.2011 Between : Sri N.H. Akbar … Petitioner And 1. The Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam., And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15891 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner claims to be a practising advocate in the Visakhapatnam Bar for the past 28 years. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of passport. It is stated that the petitioner was issued a passport on 14.7.1978 and since it lapsed, he had surrendered the same and made an application on 16.1.2008 for a new passport. The said application was rejected by order dated 30.03.2010 and challenging the same the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The material available on record shows that pursuant to the petitioner’s application the 1st respondent had called for a report from the Intelligence Department, Hyderabad, A.P. It appears that the Intelligence Department did not give a favourable report and accordingly the impugned order dated 30.03.2010 came to be passed stating that the petitioner’s application was closed in view of the non- recommendation from the Intelligence Department. Though no further reasons were assigned in the impugned order, in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated that the petitioner was a sympathiser of RSU while studying Law in Andhra University during the academic year 1974 to 1977 and he had actively participated in the strikes organised by the SAIL employees and he used to visit the jails and move bail applications for under-trial Naxalite prisoners. It is also stated that the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases, however all the three cases ended in acquittal. It is further explained that the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) in his report mentioned that as the petitioner was associated with CPI-ML PW and its Front organisations for a long time as well as in criminal cases, grant of passport facility to the petitioner was not recommended. At the outset, it is to be noticed that as per Sections 5 & 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, the Passport Authority may refuse to issue the passport on any of the grounds specified under sub-section (2) of Section 5 or sub-section (2) of Section 6. Admittedly none of the grounds mentioned in the above provisions are attracted to the case on hand. Even though certain criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, in the counter-affidavit it was admitted that all the said cases ended in acquittal. Even assuming that the petitioner was a sympathiser of RSU and had participated in strikes and also associated with the erstwhile CPIML, since the same was not a ground for refusing the passport under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, the impugned action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s request for grant of passport cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.03.2010 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application for issuance of passport and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.06.2011 Note:- CC in one week. (B/O) gbs