Disposed

Abdul Salam Kappan v. Union of India

Kerala HC8 Feb 2024WP(C)/2266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner residing in Dubai whose passport had expired sought reissue despite a pending criminal case. The court found prima facie he was abroad on the alleged date of the crime, and directed the Consulate to consider the renewal application subject to the outcome of a pending Crl.M.C.

What did the court decide?

Consulate General directed to consider petitioner's passport renewal application taking note of Exts.P3 and P4 orders; any renewal subject to outcome of Crl.M.C No.8341/2022.

Abdul Salam Kappan Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2266 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ABDUL SALAM KAPPAN, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O KUNHI MOIDEEN KAPPAN,
KAPPAN HOUSE, CHEROOR P O, VENGERA VIA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676304

¶7

BY ADVS.
BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
CHARUTHA BHAIJU
GEORGIE SIMON
CHANDHANA BHAIJU
BASIL SAJAN
FATHIM NAVAS
KAVYA P.R.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

¶11

2 THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA AL HAMRIYA, DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE, P O BOX NO 737 DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

¶12

SRI.S. MANU, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C) No.2266 of 2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2024

¶18

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner to reissue the Passport bearing No.Z2242508.

¶19

The petitioner was issued with a Passport in the year 2013 and the same was valid upto 19.04.2023. The petitioner is working and residing in Dubai and after expiry of the Passport, the petitioner filed an application to reissue his Passport, before 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has not considered the application so far, on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner and bar under section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 will be applicable to the petitioner.

¶20

The bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 is only applicable to issue a Passport or travel document

¶21

¶22

WP(C) No.2266 of 2024

¶23

for visiting any foreign country, contends the petitioner. The petitioner residing in Dubai as part of his job. He already travelled to Dubai with his current Passport, as there is no travelling restriction against the petitioner. He filed Ext.P1 application not to visit any foreign country and only to continue in Dubai legally and also to visit India. Hence, the bar under section 6 (2)(f) of Passports Act, 1967 is not applicable to the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner states that he was falsely arrayed as accused in the crime. The petitioner is now working in Dubai and his Passport has expired on 19.04.2023. Now, the petitioner is forced to have an unauthorised stay at Dubai. If the petitioner wants to continue in Dubai or to return to India, a valid Passport is highly necessary. The petitioner has all the right to reissue his Passport, contends the petitioner.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

It is discernible from the pleadings and arguments

¶27

raised at the Bar that the crime alleged against the petitioner

¶28

¶29

WP(C) No.2266 of 2024

¶30

is stated to have occurred on 27.10.2011. The particulars endorsed in the Passport of the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner went to Saudi Arabia on 25.10.2011 and returned to India only on 07.12.2011. Prima facie, the petitioner, who was in Saudi Arabia, could not have been an accused in a crime alleged to have occurred on 27.10.2011.

¶31

In Crl.M.C No.8341/2022 filed by the petitioner, it

¶32

was reported on behalf of the Central Government Counsel that on verification of emigration details of the petitioner, it is found that the petitioner has left India on 25.10.2011 and he returned to India only on 07.12.2011. It is seen that on the alleged date of incident, the petitioner was not in India. This Court in Crl.M.A No.2 of 2022 in Crl.M.C No.8341/2022, has passed an interim order staying all further proceedings in SC No.317/2015.

¶33

Taking into consideration the afore facts, I am of the view that the 2^nd respondent can consider the application for renewal of Passport submitted by the petitioner subject to

¶34

¶35

WP(C) No.2266 of 2024

¶36

the outcome of Crl.M.C No.8341/2022 pending before this

¶37

Court.

¶38

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Consulate General of India to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of Passport taking note of Exts.P3 and P4 orders of this Court. It is made clear that any such renewal will be subject to the outcome of Crl.M.C No.8341/2022 pending before this Court.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.2266 of 2024

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2266/2024

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT BEARING
NO. Z2242508 ISSUED ON 20/04/2013
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION REFERENCE
NO. 23-2004539092 FILED.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
18/11/2022 IN CRL.MC NO. 8341/2022 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
22/12/2022 IN CRL.MC NO. 8341/2022 OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT

Abdul Salam Kappan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam Kappan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy Ks Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., (Kerala Bank)

K.T.Thomas Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Wilsy K, Vs State of Kerala

Shiju P.B Vs the Authorized Officer/General Manager

Muhammed Asharaf Vs Regional Passport Officer

Mamachan K. C. Vs Canara Bank