Allowed

Antony Rajan Rajaiyan, v. the Regional Passport Officer

Madras HC19 Apr 2017WP(MD)/4554/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the impounding of the petitioner's passport. The court held that without a filed charge sheet and Magisterial cognizance, passport impounding is unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication impounding the passport was set aside, and the passport was directed to be restored within two weeks.

Antony Rajan Rajaiyan, Vs the Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4554 of 2017 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos.3669 to 3671 of 2017

¶7

Antony Rajan Rajaiyan ..Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶10

2.The Airport Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (AFRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Immigration Wing, Trivandrum International Airport, Trivandrum, Kerala State. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned communication of the 1^st respondent dated 30.05.2016, which decided to impound the petitioner's Passport, in Passport No. N6644418, issued on 01.02.2016, under Section 10(3)(e), “Criminal Case is pending before the Court” of the Passport Act, 1967 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to return back the petitioner's Passport, in Passport No.N6644418 issued on 01.02.2016, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 04.03.2017 at Trivandrum International Airport, within a time bound manner as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, to the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.P.Paulpandi

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the impugned communication of the 1^st respondent dated 30.05.2016, which decided to impound the petitioner's Passport, in Passport No. N6644418, issued on 01.02.2016, under Section 10(3)(e), “Criminal Case is pending before the Court” of the Passport Act, 1967 and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to return back the petitioner's Passport, in Passport No.N6644418 issued on 01.02.2016, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent on 04.03.2017 at Trivandrum International Airport, within a time frame to the petitioner.

¶18

2.According to the petitioner, no charge sheet has been filed in respect of the Crime No.670/2015, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, which was the basis for impounding the passport of the petitioner. Even assuming that charge sheet has been filed, the same has not been taken cognizance by the Magistrate concerned under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶19

3.The first respondent has filed a counter stating that charge sheet has been filed in Crime No.670 of 2015. When the learned counsel appearing for the respondents was confronted with the specific question that when the charge sheet has been filed and when the same was taken cognizance by the concerned Magistrate, he is unable to answer to the specific query put by this Court.

¶20

4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in W. Jaihar William v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2014) 8 MLJ 61 . In the said decision, this Court has clearly held in paragraph 10, which is extracted below:

¶21

“10. ... Therefore, it is clear that unless the Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, on filing of charge-sheet on completion of investigation against the applicant, it cannot be said that the proceedings are pending before the Criminal Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the 3^rd respondent cannot mechanically refuse to issue passport to the petitioners, merely for the reasons that the FIRs are pending against the petitioners. On receipt of the application for passport, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.”

¶22

5.In view of the above legal position, the impugned order passed by the first respondent impounding the passport of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is not sustainable in law.

¶23

¶24

6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed and the impugned communication of the 1^st respondent dated 30.05.2016 is set aside and the 1^st respondent is directed to restore the passport to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar (T&P) Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Regional Passport Officer, Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶29

2.The Airport Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (AFRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Immigration Wing, Trivandrum International Airport, Trivandrum, Kerala State.

¶30

1 CC TO Mr.P.PAULPANDI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 52649 + 1 CC TO Mr.C.Kishore, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 53055

¶31

SJ TE/KP/SAR-IV : 27/04/2017 : 3P/5C

¶32

W.P(MD)No.4554 of 2017 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos.3669 to 3671 of 2017 19.04.2017

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Antony Rajan Rajaiyan, v. the Regional Passport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Rajan Rajaiyan, v. the Regional 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alagar, Vs the District Collector

Sankar Ambedkar, Vs the Chief Information

M.Thiagarajan, Vs the Passport Issuing Authority

C.M. Salahudeen (Died) Vs the District Collector

Peththayee Vs the Inspector General of

S.Rabik Raja, Vs the Divisional Railway