Disposed

Amarjit v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2023WRIC/26910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought renewal of passport denied due to pendency of criminal case. Court noted statutory bar but directed petitioner to seek court order under GSR 570(E) and relevant Office Memoranda to get exemption from the restriction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to seek court order permitting departure under GSR 570(E) and_OM 2019 to renew passport.

Amarjit Vs Union of India and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175616-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26910 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Amarjit Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents-Union of India.

¶7

By invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to direct the respondents, especially the Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi and the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, to decide the application dated 15.5.2023 filed for renewal/re-issuance of the passport in favour of the petitioner within some specified time.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a passport bearing No. C945385 was issued in favour of the petitioner on 2.12.2013, which was valid upto 1.12.2023.After obtaining the passport, the petitioner went to Dubai for earning livelihood. As the passport of the petitioner was expiring, he moved an online application for renewal on 13.6.2023, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to this petition. He submitted that petitioner belongs to rural background and one villager namely, Ram Sukh lodged NCR No.97/2021against the petitioner and others on 17.5.2021 with allegation of scuffle. On the said NCR, an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2021 passed by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 5 to this petition. When the petitioner went to Passport Office to inquire about the status of his passport renewal application, he was informed that due to pendency of aforesaid criminal case against him, his passport could not be renewed.

¶9

The reason, thus, for not renewing the passport of the petitioner is apparent. It is only on account of the pendency of the criminal case that his passport is not being renewed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that only on account of pendency of criminal case, the renewal of

¶11

the passport of the petitioner cannot be stopped. He further submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and due to non renewal of his passport he is unable to go abroad and is being deprived of getting employment.

¶12

We have considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard learned counsel representing the respondents, who has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act 1967, the passport authority is bound to refuse to issue the passport under Section 5(2)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 in this case for the reason that pendency of criminal proceedings is one of the grounds enumerated in Section 6(2)(f) of the Act of 1967 to deny issuance of passport.

¶13

Section 6 (2)(f) of the 1967 Act provides that the passport authority shall refuse to issue the passport in various conditions including a situation where proceedings in respect of an offence, alleged to have been committed by the person seeking passport, are pending before criminal court in India. It is undeniable in this case NCR No.97 of 2021 has been lodged against the petitioner and the investigation is still going on.

¶14

Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 6 (2)(f) of the 1967 Act, unless the criminal proceedings are concluded, the passport authority is bound to refuse issuance of the passport, however to meet such exigencies where some frivolous or unsustainable criminal cases are pending, Government of India has issued a Circular dated 10.10.2019. The said circular has been issued in furtherance of an earlier Circular published vide Notification No.GSR 570 (E), dated 25.08.1993. The said circulars dated 10.10.2019 and 25.08.1993 have been issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 and hence they are statutory in nature and accordingly are binding on all concerned.

¶15

We may also notice that Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 has been issued in reference to the provisions contained in Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. As per the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, GSR 570 (E), dated 25.08.1993 exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before the criminal court in India if they produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from operation of the provisions of Section 6 (2)(f) of the 1967 Act. Clause 5 (i) of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 clearly

¶16

provides that the provisions of GSR 570 (E) may be strictly applied in all cases, which also clarifies that GSR 570 (E) is a statutory notification and hence it forms part of the Rules.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, what we notice is that the Government of India has been conscious of a situation where certain frivolous criminal complaints or cases are lodged against the persons seeking passport and accordingly, has evolved a complete mechanism by issuing Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and Office Memorandum dated 25.08.1993 (GSR 570 (E)). When we examine the facts of the present case, what we find is that the First Information Report has been lodged by the real sister of the applicant and the contents thereof also reflect that the same was lodged in relation to some not so serious family dispute.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, denying the petitioner passport only on account of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case does not appear to be equitable. However in terms of the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 10.10.2019 and 25.08.1993, the petitioner will have to seek an order from the court where the charge sheet in relation to the NCR No.58 of 2016, P.S. Barhaj, District-Deoria is pending. In case any such application is preferred by the petitioner, the Court concerned shall consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law considering the provisions contained in Office Memorandums dated 10.10.2019 and 25.08.1993 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs.

¶19

The decision by the court concerned shall be taken within 10 days from the date any such application is made by the petitioner before the Court concerned.

¶20

Once any such order is passed by the Court concerned, the case of the petitioner for renewal/ re-issue of passport shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority within next ten days.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.9.2023 Manish Himwan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amarjit v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit v. Union of India and Another

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

Sonoo Ansari Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ram Asre Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kashish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Innova Am Tech LLP Vs M/S Pathik Software Education Private Limited and 2 Others

Surya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sukhai Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others