Rabindra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶16

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in G.R. Case No.176 of 2021 by the learned J.M.F.C., Pipili and further for a direction to grant renewal of passport anytime on any terms and conditions in favour of the Petitioner.

¶17

Initially the present application was presented under the nomenclature of Writ Petition, however, the same has been

¶18

Page 1 of 4.

¶19

converted to a CRLMC application by virtue of the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.10906 of 2024 for grant of passport by the passport authority, which was disposed of on 03.05.2024 with the following observations:-

¶20

“ Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event Petitioner makes an application for grant of permission/NOC for renewal of his Passport bearing No. V7232840, the same shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such application, giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, keeping in mind that the Petitioner is in Saudi Arabia and may be deported at any time for non-renewal of Passport .”

¶21

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner was granted a passport by the passport authority. On the basis of the passport issued in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner travelled abroad and he has been attending the court proceeding without fail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the passport, which was issued for 15 days, expired in the meantime. Therefore, the Petitioner again approached the passport authority for renewal of the passport. Instead the passport authorities insisted for an order passed by the court for extension/ renewal of the passport. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the learned trial court by filing an application with a prayer for a direction to the passport authorities for renewal of the passport. The prayer of the Petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that there is nothing on record whereunder the passport authorities

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

have sought for the clarification or permission from the court. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner which was a successive prayer by virtue of the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 at Annexure-5 to the application. She further contended that earlier the prayer of the Petitioner was considered and a passport was issued in favour of the Petitioner pursuant to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a Writ Petition. She further submitted that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner for renewal of the passport as there was no such clarification sought for by the passport authority.

¶26

Mr.Nayak, learned counsel representing the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 contended that for issuance of passport or renewal thereof, the clearance from the trial court is necessary since the Petitioner is involved in a criminal case. However, he further submitted that in the present case, no such clearance was called for from the concerned court by the passport authority. However, he further reiterated the stand that a clearance from the learned trial court is required for extension/ renewal of the passport issued in favour of the Petitioner.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position, further taking into consideration the fact that the passport authorities are required to process the application of the Petitioner for extension/ renewal of such passport subject to the clearance by

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

Anil

¶30

the learned trial court, the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 at Annexure-5 is hereby set aside. Further the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the learned trial court by filing an appropriate application along with necessary documents seeking clearance from the learned trial court. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider such application of the Petitioner in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application by the Petitioner.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

¶32

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Page 4 of 4.

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Aug-2025 18:26:02

Rabindra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pitabash Danta Vs State of Odisha

Md. Safiq Khan Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Nandi Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Darjee Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Siva Shankar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Choudhury@ Tukuna Vs State of Odisha