Dismissed

Suma Raju v. the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC24 May 2012WP(C)/3358/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought duplicate passport despite pendency of criminal case. Court relied on prior decision requiring permission from criminal court and disposed of writ petition directing petitioner to approach competent court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move the competent criminal court for permission. Order to be produced before Passport Officer.

Suma Raju Vs the Regional Transport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3358 of 2012 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUMA RAJU, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN ACHARI, VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.R. SIVAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER,

¶11

PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶13

PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682031.

¶14

BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI JOSEPH GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)NO.3358/12

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶18

EXT.P1: COPOY OF CMP.NO.7504/10 DT.19.7.10.

¶19

EXT.P2: COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.828/10 DT.23.7.10.

¶20

EXT.P3: COPY OF INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.15.9.10.

¶21

EXT.P4: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.28.1.11.

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF EXPLANATION DT.29.9.10.

¶23

EXT.P6: COPY OF EXPLANATION DT.10.2.11.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

dsn

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶29

--------------------------------------------------

¶30

W.P.(C)No.3358 of 2012

¶31

--------------------------------------------------

¶32

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF MAY, 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is seeking for issuance of a duplicate passport on the plea that the original passport was lost. He is stated to be a holder of Indian Passport No.E.6457921 issued by the first respondent.

¶35

Going by the pleadings in the Writ Petition, it can be seen that the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife led to the filing of a complaint before the JFCM, Paravoor by the wife as per C.M.P.No.7504/2010 alleging offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 IPC and the petitioner has been arrayed as the first accused therein. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the complaint. On forwarding the complaint to the police, they have registered a criminal case as Crime No.828/2010. Exhibit P2 is the copy of the first information report.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶37

pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for the petitioner to get a duplicate passport.

¶38

W.P.(C)No.3358/12

¶39

-2-

¶40

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that in the light of the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner will have to move the competent criminal court itself. The said contention is made on the basis of a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.K.Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala (2009 KHC 557) . It is clear from paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said judgment that the learned Magistrate will have to consider such an application. The headnote of the said decision is extracted below.

¶41

“ The permission was sought in accordance with notification No.G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 (published in the Gazette of India, Extra. Part II S.3(i) dated 25.8.1993) issued by the Central Government under cl.(a) of S.22 of the Passports Act, 1967. As per the said notification it is only if the criminal Court before which the case of the applicant is pending permits him to depart from India, will the applicant be exempted from the operation of the provisions of cl.(f) of subs.(2) of S.6 of the said Act and the same shall be, subject to conditions such as the period specified by the Court for the issue of Passport etc. In the normal course the above C.C. cases are not likely to come up for trial at least for a period of 9 or 10 months. Hence there was no justification on the part of the Magistrate in refusing the permission sought for to

¶42

W.P.(C)No.3358/12 -3-

¶43

go abroad for a period of six months.”

¶44

In that view of the matter, the petitioner will have to

¶45

move the concerned criminal court and after getting permission, the petitioner can produce the order of the criminal court before the Passport Officer, who will consider the matter in terms of the direction issued by the said Court expeditiously.

¶46

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE)

¶48

dsn

Suma Raju v. the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma Raju v. the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.K.Somasekharan Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

P.Saidalavi Vs Government of Kerala

K.V. Jolly Vs the District Collector Ernakulam

C.a.Ajith Vs Sri.K.K.Monudeen

Jamal A.M. Vs Shri.K.Ajayakumar

Pheba K.David Vs the Director of Public Instructions