THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20272 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was issued passport by the 1st respondent on 27.10.2004, valid for a period of five years. The petitioner is said to have traveled abroad for three times on that. The petitioner states that he received an invitation from a Social Welfare Organisation in Canada to participate at a meeting between 10th and 18th September, 2009. Since the passport was going to expire on 26.10.2009, he submitted an application on 25.08.2009 to the 1st respondent. The passport of the petitioner was found to be in a damaged condition. Therefore, the 1st respondent refused to receive the application for renewal and instead, advised the petitioner to apply for a duplicate passport. The petitioner submitted another application on 09.09.2009 by remitting a sum of Rs.2,500/-. He asserts that the application filed by him was for renewal of passport. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has invited a report as to his antecedents from the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not renewing the passport on the basis of a report of antecedents received from the 2nd respondent and for a direction to the 1st respondent to renew the passport. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of passport but according to the provisions of the Passport Act, an application for renewal cannot be entertained, if the passport is in a damaged condition. The only alternative is said to be to apply for issuance of duplicate passport. According to the 1st respondent, the process of issuance of duplicate passport involves verification of antecedents and accordingly the report was invited from the 2nd respondent. It is stated that in his report, the 2nd respondent referred to the various cases pending against the petitioner and ultimately recommended for rejection of the application for duplicate passport. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter affidavit referring to the various cases in which the petitioner figures as an accused and submission of a report recommending the rejection of application. Across the Bar, it is stated that the order of rejection has since been communicated to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner does not dispute that the passport that was issued to him in the year 2004 is in a damaged condition. The procedure prescribed under the Passport Act mandates that if a passport is damaged, renewal thereof is not permissible and application for issuance of duplicate thereof must be filed. The verification of antecedents which is undertaken at the time of issuance of passport is required to be repeated. The application for issuance of duplicate is filed. It is in this background that the report from the 2nd respondent was invited by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is also aware of the same and made extensive reference to that exercise in the affidavit filed in the writ petition. The 1st respondent has chosen the course of inviting a report from the 2nd respondent by placing reliance upon the provisions of the Passport Act. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate as to how the course adopted by the 1st respondent is defective or unlawful. At any ate, a substantial development has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. The 1st respondent passed an order rejecting the application of the petitioner and stating the reasons therefor. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by that order, he has to file a separate writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Punjab and Haryana Court in Ranjit Bajaj vs. Regnl. Passport Authority[1] and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Anwar-ul-Haq vs. Union of India[2]. The ratio laid in those decisions is that an adverse report obtained and verification of the antecedents or mere pendency of criminal cases does not disentitle a citizen of his right to be issued a passport. An occasion for this Court to deal with the merit of that submission would arise, if only the order of rejection is challenged. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the order of rejection. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.) Date: 31.12.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20272 of 2009 Date:31.12.2009 JSU [1] AIR 2004 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 327 [2] AIR 2008 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 35