Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3481 (MAD)

B. John Pandian v. Regional Passport Officer

2012-08-06

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to renew his passport bearing file No.MASV00006811, dated 04.01.2011 as per his representation dated 6.9.2011. 2. When the matter came up on 22.6.2012, this court directed notice to be served on the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Passport Department and also on the Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent, i.e., the District Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. Accordingly, on notice, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 19.7.2012 together with typed set of papers in support of the averments found in the counter affidavit. The learned Special Government Pleader also produced a communication sent by the second respondent to the first respondent Regional Passport Officer and the enclosures made thereunder. 3. Heard both sides. Even before filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.10811 of 2011 seeking for a direction to renew his passport. In that writ petition, this court by an order dated 28.04.2011 had directed the first respondent herein to pass orders on merits. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, the first respondent by a communication, dated 13.05.2011 had informed the petitioner as follows : "On verification, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai has stated that Crime No.45/93 u/s 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 332, 427, 407, 435, 511 IPC (A.40) is pending in the Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District and advised to consider issue of passport, on clearance from the Dindigul Police authorities. This office has referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 26/04/2011 and the report is still awaited. On receipt of clearance from the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, issue of passport will be considered. This is for your information." 4. But, the petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation, dated 6.9.2011 stating that the Commissioner of Police had already sent a report and still he has not received his passport. Therefore, the first respondent was requested to renew his passport. 5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that on verification the Commissioner of Police, Chennai had stated that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.45 of 1993 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323,324, 332, 427, 407, 435, 511 of IPC. He was shown as accused No.40. The same is pending before the Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul. 5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that on verification the Commissioner of Police, Chennai had stated that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.45 of 1993 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323,324, 332, 427, 407, 435, 511 of IPC. He was shown as accused No.40. The same is pending before the Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul on 26.04.2011. The status report was sent by the second respondent. He had reported that the crime was still pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Dindigul and an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner on 30.5.2011. Therefore, the status of the petitioner's passport application was again informed by the first respondent on 7.9.2011 in response to the representation of the petitioner. A further reply was sent to the petitioner on 24.9.2011. Therefore, the question of granting any direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered. 6. In the order, dated 24.09.2011, the petitioner was informed as follows : "On verification, the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, has reported that Criminal No.45/93, was registered against you in Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District and the same is pending in J.M.II Court, Dindigul and arrest warrant was also issued against you on 30/05/2011. Further issue of passport facilities will be considered, on disposal of the above mentioned case and clearance from the police authorities. This status was also informed to you vide this office letter of even number dated 21/06/2011 (Copy enclosed). The status of your passport application was again informed to you vide this office letter of even number dated 07/09/2011, in response to your letter dated 06/09/2011. (Copy enclosed)." 7. In the remarks submitted by the Superintendent of Police, it was stated that the case of the petitioner was still pending and that the final report filed was also enclosed. 8. Therefore, the only question to be considered was whether during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner is entitled for renewal of his passport? 9. Under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport can be refused if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant was pending before a criminal court in India. While analysing the scope of section 6(2) (f), a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment in Ranjit Bajaj Vs. While analysing the scope of section 6(2) (f), a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment in Ranjit Bajaj Vs. Regional Passport Authority, Chandigarh reported in AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 327, in paragraph 8 had observed as follows : "8.) Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act empowers the Passport Authority to refuse to issue a passport or travel documents for going abroad in the event the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. This provision does not offend the constitutional mandate in any way. It also does not vest the authorities with arbitrary power. Pendency of a case before the criminal Court, seen in the light of police report, would be a sufficient ground for the authorities to act and in its wisdom even decline issuance of the passport. Exercise of such jurisdiction would hardly be open to judicial review unless such decision was palpably erroneous or was offending the basic rule of law. If the element of arbitrariness ex-facie vitiates the order, then alone it may be a case of interference by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction." 10. Under these circumstances, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.