Partly allowed

Bimal Roy C.V. v. the Passport Officer

Kerala HC3 Jul 2018WA/1296/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal challenging the validity of a single judge's direction limiting passport renewal to three months. The High Court modified the direction to renew the passport for one year, aligning with the Noushad judgment.

What did the court decide?

Modified the direction of the single judge; Passport Issuing Authorities to renew the petitioner's passport for a period of one year.

Bimal Roy C.V. Vs the Passport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WA.No. 1296 of 2018 IN WPC. 15794/2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15794/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-06-2018

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶7

BIMAL ROY C.V., S/O. VISHNUDAS, POURNAMI HOUSE, H NO: KP V/194, PV THAMPI ROAD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, TRIVANDRUM.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:

¶10

1. THE PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT PASSPORT OFFICER, PASSPORT OFFICE, KAITHAMUKKU, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SHO, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 695 001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

vpv

¶16

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ. &

¶17

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶18

W.A.No.1296 of 2018

¶19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ.

¶22

Heard Sri.M.R.Sudheendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The writ petitioner was an accused in a criminal case and he filed Cr.M.P.No.770 of 2018 in S.C.No.710 of 2015 where the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam issued certain directions on release of the passport to the accused as he has to effect a short travel to the United Arab Emirates, in connection with his professional engagement. The learned Judge directed release of the passport on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh Only) and the holder of the passport was required to return back the passport within 90 days of the date of such release. However, in the meantime, the validity of the passport had expired and accordingly, the petitioner applied for renewal before the first respondent but the request was not considered by the Passport Officer.

¶24

Aggrieved by the inaction of the Authorities, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.15794 of 2018 where the learned single Judge considered the Ext.P2 order of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and ordered that if the petitioner prefers an application, the Passport Issuing Authority should renew the passport of the petitioner as

¶25

W.A.No.1296 of 2018

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

directed in the Ext.P2 order, confining the passport validity to a limited period of three months.

¶28

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid direction for limiting the passport validity to three months, the writ petitioner is in appeal before us.

¶29

Sri.M.R.Sudheendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner refers to the decision in Noushad v. State of Kerala (2017 (1) KLT 972) which analysed the relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and declared that necessarily the passport should be issued for a period of one year.

¶30

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as also by the learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondents. The direction given by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge has also been taken into account as also the requirement of issuing passport with minimum validity period of one year as is held in Noushad v. State of Kerala (supra).

¶31

The petitioner was allowed to secure his passport to enable him to make a short trip to the United Arab Emirates and although the direction for return of the passport was ordered by the learned Judge, it was never intended that the renewal of the passport should also be confined to a period of three months. In fact, a passport with such limited validity period is unlikely to receive a favourable response from the Visa Issuing Authorities, who normally insist upon the visa applicant that he/she is holding a passport with remaining validity period of at-least six months.

¶32

In the above circumstances, having regard to the decision in Noushad v. State of Kerala (supra) as also the direction issued by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, we deem it appropriate to modify the direction of the learned single

¶33

W.A.No.1296 of 2018

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

Judge to the effect that the Passport Issuing Authorities should renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year and the renewal should not be limited to a period of three months. We therefore record our agreement with the judgment in Noushad v. State of Kerala (supra) in reference to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. It is declared accordingly.

¶36

With the above order, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶37

sd/- Hrishikesh Roy, Acting Chief Justice

¶38

sd/-

¶39

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge

¶40

vpv

Bimal Roy C.V. v. the Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Roy C.V. 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

M.S. Anil Vs S.K. Jayachandran

Rupesh Ravindran Vs Kerala Water Authority

Annie Thomas Vs the Village Officer, Vadama Village

Sreekuttan Vs State of Kerala

John Mathew Vs P.T. Aniyankunju

Food Corporation of India Vs Ayyappa Roller Mills Limited