IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27192 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ARSH MANZIL, KOCHULIYANCODE, PANGODU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.LIJU. M.P MR.A.SABEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27192 of 2009 - T ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th December, 2009 Judgment The petitioner applied to the Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram for a passport. The application was submitted on 28.1.2009. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Passport Officer in issuing a passport. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram to issue a passport to him at the earliest. 2. A statement dated 19.10.2009 has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.621 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam and that the petitioner had earlier applied and obtained a passport but the details thereof were not furnished in the application for passport. It is also stated that though the petitioner's explanation in that regard was called for, he did not submit a reply. The respondents contend that as the petitioner is involved in a criminal case and W.P.(C) No.27192/2009 2 he has not furnished the details to the Passport Officer, he is not entitled to any relief. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein he admits that a passport had earlier been issued to him. He however states that the passport was irrecoverably lost and therefore he could not surrender it. The petitioner has not however explained the reason why he did not disclose this fact in his application for passport. The petitioner explains his laches by stating that after the application for passport was submitted, he had sent Exts.P3 and P4 letters to the Passport Officer. In my opinion, Exts.P3 and P4 cannot be an explanation for not disclosing the real state of affairs in the application for passport. The petitioner had a duty to mention in the application for passport that earlier a passport had been issued to him and that it is lost. The details set out Exts.P3 and P4 could have been mentioned even in the application for a fresh passport. 4. In my opinion, as the petitioner is admittedly an accused in a criminal case, he cannot leave India unless the Court where he is being tried grants him permission to leave W.P.(C) No.27192/2009 3 India. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that on the petitioner moving the trial court and obtain permission to leave India, the Passport Officer shall consider the petitioner's application for a fresh passport in accordance with law and take a decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the competent Court granting permission to the petitioner to leave India. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa