Disposed

Prashob Sugathan v. the Passport Officer

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/21273/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking re-validation of the petitioner's passport. It directed the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court where criminal proceedings are pending for clearance, after which the Passport Office will consider the application within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Sessions Court for clearance; if given, Passport Office to consider duplicate passport application within two weeks.

Prashob Sugathan Vs the Passport Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21273 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRASHOB SUGATHAN, S/O.K.E.SUGATHAN, MULLASSERI VEEDU, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶11

2. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 21273 of 2013 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE EMERGENCY CERTIFICATE NO.X291654 ISSUED TO PETITIONER ON 14.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND SECRETARY (CONS) HIGH COMMISSION OF INDIA (COLOMBO)

¶19

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 23.3.2012 BY THE INDIAN HIGH COMMISSION AT COLOMBO ISSUED BY THE OPERATIONS MANAGER OF GAC SHIPPING LIMITED THE AGENT COMPANY FOR THE LOST DOCUMENTS OF PETITIONER INCLUDING HIS PASSPORT.

¶20

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM TOLANI SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED DATED 3.7.2012 SENT TO PETITIONER

¶21

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO.228/2012 OF AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION.

¶22

EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO.1222/2012 (RENDERED IN COMMON ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO.1222/2012, CRL.M.P NBO.1223/2012, CRL.M.P NO.1256/2012 AND CRL.M.P NO.1247/2012), DATED 10.4.2012 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶23

EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO.3082/2012 AND CRL.M.P NO.1222/2012 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, ALAPPUZHA DATED 10.8.2012

¶24

EXT.P-7: TRUE PRINT OUT OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 19.2.2013 FROM THE OFFICE OF HIGH COMMISSION OF INDIA SENT TO PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DSM, NEW DELHI, DATED 11.3.2013

¶26

EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS THROUGH DEPUTY SECRETARY (SRI LANKA)

¶27

EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CRL.M.P NO.2467/2013 FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶28

EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO.2467/2013 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 17.7.2013

¶29

EXT.P-12: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF PETITIONER BEARING NO.HO675448 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM SOUTHERN ACADEMY OF MARITIME STUDIES, CHENNAI.

....3/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 21273 of 2013 (H)

¶35

EXT.P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY DATED 1.10.2010 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER BY THE CHIEF EXAMINER NAUTICAL ADVISER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶37

EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 3-4-2008

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the first respondent to re-validate the passport bearing No. H 0695448, so as to enable him to travel abroad.

¶46

The case of the petitioner is that, he was the second officer of a ship by name 'Prabhu Daya' and while standing on the deck of the ship, he happened to be thrown overboard into sea on 01.03.2012 at 00.55 hrs, when a fishing trawler rammed into the ship resulting in death of 5 fishermen, also causing injury to, two fishermen. The petitioner who fell into the sea, was subsequently rescued by Sri Lankan Navy and was taken to Sri Lanka. The petitioner contends that, he was not having any approved documents and subsequently on filing necessary proceedings, he was granted emergency exit VISA and was brought to India. A Crime came to be registered against the petitioner and others as Crime No. 228 of 2012 of Ambalapuzha Police Station, in respect of offences under Sections 280, 337, 304A of IPC. It is stated that the petitioner has already been released on bail, as per order passed by the Sessions Court,

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 21273 of 2013

¶48

: 2 :

¶49

Alappuzha in Crl. M.P. No. 1222 of 2012 on 10.04.2012, imposing certain stringent conditions. In the meanwhile, the passport of the petitioner was declared as 'lost' and further steps were being pursued to have new approved documents. But subsequently, the lost passport was traced out, when the petitioner sought for permission to make use of the said passport till its validity period, which expires only in the year 2018. Though the petitioner has preferred necessary application to delete the entry in the data system with regard to the status of the petitioner's 'as lost', the same has not even accepted by the respondents, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for immediate relief.

¶50

A detailed statement has been filed by the respondents as to the factual figures, pointing out that the relief sought for by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained and that the entry made in the system with regard to the status of the passport lost/misplaced is not liable to be rectified or cured. It is stated that the petitioner has to apply for duplicate passport and if necessary application is filed in this regard, it will be considered in the light of Circular No. VI/401/1/1/2005 dated 03.04.2008, which has been produced as Annexure R1(a) [wrongly mentioned as Ext. R1(a) in the statement].

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 21273 of 2013

¶52

: 3 :

¶53

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the need of the hour, the petitioner has to go abroad in connection with employment. In pursuance of Ext. P10 application preferred by the petitioner before the concerned Court to lift/modify the condition and after considering the same, Ext.P11 order came to be passed on 17.07.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is ready to make an application for issuance of a duplicate passport, in view of the enabling provision, as borne by Annexure R1 (a).

¶54

The learned Central Government Counsel submits that in view of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner has to obtain necessary clearance from the concerned Court, more so when Ext. P11 does not give any blanket permission and some other conditions are still subsisting. This is more so in view of law declared by this Court in Asok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 712) , where the relevant Circular issued by the Government is also been referred to, while explaining the course to be pursued.

¶55

In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to approach the concerned Court,

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 21273 of 2013

¶57

: 4 :

¶58

where the matter is pending, by filing necessary application for appropriate relief. If any such application is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, it shall be considered in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Asok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (cited supra) and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. If clearance is given by the concerned Court, the respondents shall consider the application to be preferred by the petitioner on-line for issuance of duplicate passport, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of such application, with the clearance as aforesaid.

¶59

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶62

kmd

Prashob Sugathan v. the Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashob Sugathan v. the Passport Officer

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

Janardhanan Chettiar Vs a.M.Ashraf

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar

K.K.Chacko Vs the State of Kerala

K.Dasan Vs Inspector General (Registration)

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala

Murukan Vs Chief Conservator of Forest & Custodian of Vested Forest