Disposed

Ebad Ahmad Khan v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2019WRIC/10433/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that keeping a passport application in abeyance solely due to a registered NCR, without pending criminal proceedings, is unjustified. The court directed the Passport Authority to decide the application expeditiously upon receipt of a representation by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file representation; respondent Authority to decide application expeditiously within one month of receiving certified copy of order.

Ebad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10433 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ebad Ahmad Khan Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Avijit Saxena,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that he applied for issuance of a Passport on 22.10.2018, the respondents served a letter dated 20.11.2018 informing the petitioner that a criminal case is registered against the petitioner and he was called upon to furnish suitable explanation in that regard. The petitioner states that on receiving the said letter he enquired and found that a Case No. NCR 165 of 2018 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Jeanpur District Azamgarh by the brother of the petitioner Meraj Ahmad under Sections 323 & 504 IPC. It is stated that no criminal case in respect of the said NCR No.165 of 2018 is pending in any criminal Court and the petitioner has already submitted his explanation in response to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018.

¶6

The petitioner states that despite giving his explanation, no steps are being taken for issuance of Passport which is violative of the rights of the petitioner and as such he has filed the present petition.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 which prohibits the grant of Passport only on the ground enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 6 which is quoted herein below:-

¶8

"(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:

¶9

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

¶10

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

¶11

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

¶12

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

¶13

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been

¶14

committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

¶15

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

¶16

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

¶17

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest."

¶18

A perusal of clause (f) and (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act clearly provides that a Passport cannot be issued in the event of any proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India or warrant or summons for appearance of the applicant has been issued by court under any law or that an order prohibiting the departure from India has been passed by such court. In the present case, there are no criminal proceedings pending in any criminal court in India and the NCR registered against the petitioner is not even under investigation.

¶19

Considering the averments made by the petitioner and the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 particularly Section 6(2), it transpires that in the present case no criminal case is pending in any court of law, thus, the application of the petitioner for grant of passport cannot be kept in abeyance merely because an NCR was registered against him where no order under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. has yet been passed for investigation.

¶20

In view of the above, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2 along with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today and in the event such a representation is filed, the respondent no. 2 shall proceed to take a decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of Passport expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law and keeping in view of

¶21

the observation made herein above. This order is being passed only on the assumption that only NCR has been lodged against the petitioner and it has not been converted into a cognizable offence.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed above.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.5.2019 Hasnain

Ebad Ahmad Khan v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ebad Ahmad Khan v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S National Dharam Kanta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ran Niwas Rai Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Vijendra Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Faya Nath Mali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tara Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Girija Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others