Allowed¶40

Mr Sreejith Vijayan Sreekumari v. Union of India

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025WP/6608/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal refused due to pending criminal case; mere pendency of complaint under investigation outside Section 6(2F) Passports Act embargo, which applies only on cognizance by Court; mandamus to consider reissuance of passport M5407876 within one week; Crime No.218/2023, IPC Sections 354A, 354D, 504, 420; follows Sharath Chandrasekhar vs. Union of India, WP No.18066/2023 (14.2.2024); notification dated 25.8.1993 and OM dated 10.10.2019; Karnataka HC, Suraj Govindaraj J., WP 6608/2025 (GM-PASS), Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directing the respondents to consider reissuance of passport No. M5407876 if the application for reissuance is filed, subject to all other conditions being satisfied, within one week from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶40

Mr Sreejith Vijayan Sreekumari Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose passport renewal was refused on account of pending criminal proceedings (Crime No.218/2023), is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing renewal/reissuance of passport No. M5407876. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Writ petition allowed; mandamus issued directing the respondents to consider reissuance of passport No. M5407876 if the application for reissuance is filed, subject to all other conditions being satisfied, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The Court held there can be no dispute with the dicta of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sharath Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (WP No.18066/2023, 14.2.2024) that mere pendency of a complaint for investigation does not fall within Section 6(2F) of the Passports Act, and that the embargo applies only if cognizance is taken by the Court; the petition was decided on that basis.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj J., single judge), W.P. No. 6608 of 2025 (GM-PASS), decided 12-03-2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:10496). The petitioner, an Indian citizen employed in the USA, sought a writ of mandamus for renewal/reissuance of passport No. M5407876, issued by the Consulate General of India through the Vice Consul, San Francisco, and due to expire on 08.09.2025. Respondent No.2 (Regional Passport Officer, Bengaluru) had refused renewal on account of Crime No.218/2023 under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, 420 IPC, registered on a complaint by the petitioner's sister-in-law and pending investigation. Learned counsel relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sharath Chandrasekhar vs. Union of India dated 14.2.2024 in WP No.18066/2023, which — taking into account the notification dated 25.8.1993 and the Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 — held that mere pendency of a complaint for investigation does not attract the Section 6(2F) Passports Act embargo, which operates only upon cognizance by the Court. This Court held the dicta indisputable, allowed the writ petition, and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to consider reissuance of passport No. M5407876, if applied for, subject to all other conditions being satisfied, within one week of receipt of the order. Party description corrected vide Court Order dated 21.03.2025.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10496 WP No. 6608 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6608 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR SREEJITH *VIJAYAN SREEKUMARI S/O. VIJAYAN GOPALAN. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT 4282 NW CHANTICLEER DR. APT L3 PORTLAND, OREGON, USA 97229 GPA HOLDER VIJAYAN GOPALAN

¶8

ALSO AT 623, ESHA HOUSE, 4^TH CROSS PARK ROAD, JR GREEN PARK, MARASUR, CHANDAPUR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 166.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KARISHMA UTHAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶14

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, BENGALURU, KENDRIYA SADAN, 8^TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095.

¶15

CONSULTATE GENERAL OF INDIA, INDIAN CONSULATE OF INDIA,

¶16

*Corrected vide Court Order dated 21.03.2025

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:10496 WP No. 6608 of 2025

¶19

3101, WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 700, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN., DSGI)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS DIRECTING THEM TO RENEW THE PASSPORT BEARING NO. M. 5407876 WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA THROUGH THE VICE CONSUL, SAN FRANCISCO, USA SINCE THE SAME IS DUE TO EXPIRE ON 08.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned DSGI is directed to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

i. To issue a writ of mandamus against the Respondents directing them to renew the passport bearing No. M 5407876 which was issued by the Consulate General of India through the Vice Consul, San Francisco, USA since the same is due to expire of 08.09.2025 vide Annexure-A

¶29

ii. To have a writ of mandamus against the Respondents directing them to issue a fresh passport to the Petitioner since his passport bearing No. M 5407876 which was issued by the Consulate General of India through the Vice

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10496 WP No. 6608 of 2025

¶31

Consul, San Francisco, USA since the same is due to expire on 08.09.2025.

¶32

iii. To award costs and grant such other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.

¶33

The petitioner is the Indian citizen presently working in the United States of America holding an Indian passport bearing No.M5407876 issued by the Indian embassy at San Francisco, USA on 9.9.2025 valid upto 8.9.2025. The petitioner being employed in USA. The sister-in-law of the petitioner had filed complaint which came to be registered as Crime No.218/2023 under Section 354A, 354D, 504, 420 of the IPC which is pending investigation. The petitioner was not granted renewal of the passport by the respondent No.2 on account of the pending criminal proceedings. It is in that view of the matter, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lis in the above matter is covered by decision of the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:10496 WP No. 6608 of 2025

¶37

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sharath Chandrasekhar vs. Union of India d ated 14.2.2024 in WP No.18066/2023, when this Court has considered the issue of refusal of the passport when the criminal proceedings in the nature above was pending and this Court taking into account the notification dated 25.8.1993 and the Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 has held that mere pendency of the complaint for investigation would not come within the purview of Section 6(2F) of the Passports Act and it is only if cognizance is taken by the Court that the embargo would apply. There cannot be any dispute as regards the dicta laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶38

In that view of the matter, I pass the following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶41

ii. A mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to consider the Reissuance of the passport as per the Passport issued

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10496 WP No. 6608 of 2025

¶43

bearing No.M5407876, if the application for reissuance is filed subject to all other conditions being satisfied within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

SR/List No.: 11 Sl No.: 2

Mr Sreejith Vijayan Sreekumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sreejith Vijayan Sreekumari v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Additional Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

H R Shantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Top Gains Minerals Macao Commercial Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ji Hazoor Vs State of Karnataka

Sree Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Vs Mysore Palace Board

Sri. Lakshmi Jeweller Vs the Authorized Officer