18. The unmistakable inference that can be drawn is that, there is no difference between renewal, reissuance or first issuance of the passport under Section 6(2) of the Act. Every issuance, re-issuance or renewal will have to meet the requirements or pass through the rigours of Section 6. To consider the submission or contra submission, hypothetically as an illustration, at the time of issuance of passport to an applicant, the applicant is clean and no proceedings are pending against him. In the interregnum during the validity of the passport the applicant gets embroiled in a crime; trial is pending or gets convicted for an offence, it cannot be said that those facts have to be ignored and passport should be directed to be re-issued only on the score that, it is for renewal and no rigour for issuance of a fresh passport can be insisted upon. This would sometimes result in the accused, holder of a passport, fleeing justice and frustrating trial. It may not be in all circumstances, but it is open to such circumstance. It is, therefore, the rigour under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act will have to be given credence as mandated under the statute failing which, it would render section 6(2)(f) of the Act redundant or otiose.
