Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the respondent to issue a duplicate passport based on the petitioner’s representation dated 26.06.2003, 29.10.2003 and 27.10.2010. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Chennai and basically he is an expert in Karate holding a Black Belt-VI Degree DAN (grading) and he has participated in State, National and International level tournaments and he has own several medals. He is highly qualified person holding the Post-graduate degree in sociology (M.A.) and also B.L. degree and as on date, he is practicing as an Advocate. The petitioner, in order to participate in many international level tournaments, as he being a coach, has to go abroad frequently and as such, the passport is very much essential for him. The petitioner has already obtained a passport as per the Passport No.N465175 dated 11.03.1993. He has lost the said passport in the year 1998 and on the same day, i.e., on 24.03.1998, he has preferred a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Chennai. Thereafter, he had applied for the issue of duplicate passport on 17.07.2000. The petitioner has also enclosed a copy of the First Information Report and certificate for missing of earlier passport issued in his favour by the Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Chennai. The petitioner has not received any duplicate passport even though he had applied under the “tatkal” scheme. 3. Such being the position, the petitioner has received a letter dated 21.02.2000 from the respondent stating that his application was not considered as a criminal case is pending in Crime No.1094/1990 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 332, 225 and 307 IPC on the file of K-3, Police Station, Aminjikarai. The petitioner, in turn, sent a reply stating that he has been acquitted in the said criminal case in S.C. No.218 of 1995 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in the said Crime No. 1094/90. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent on 26.06.2003, 29.10.2003, and 27.07.2010. But the respondent has not taken any action and as a result, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the present petition with the above said prayer. 4. Mr. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent on 26.06.2003, 29.10.2003, and 27.07.2010. But the respondent has not taken any action and as a result, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the present petition with the above said prayer. 4. Mr. S. Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was holding the passport earlier and he had lost the said passport and he has given the complaint properly to the police and thereafter, he has applied for duplicate passport. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not only a Karate champion, but also a practicing Advocate and he has to participate in international level tournaments as he being one of the expert coaches. For the said purpose, he requires passport emergently. It is contended that the respondent sent a communication to the petitioner dated 21.02.2000 stating that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and he had immediately informed that he has been acquitted in the said case. It is further contended that in the counter affidavit filed before this Court by the respondent herein, it is stated that the petitioner has been implicated in a criminal case in crime No.2 of 2009 in C.C. No.2500 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the said case is foisted against the petitioner with false and frivolous allegation. It is contended that the petitioner is not the main accused and the said was filed only due to the family dispute and the petitioners brother has been implicated as one of the main accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in several matters, this Court granted the relief of permission to the persons, who have been implicated in Criminal cases to go abroad by imposing certain conditions. The learned counsel would submit that the certain conditions. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has submitted his application in order and he has also furnished the required documents and such being the position, he should not be deprived of right of holding a passport. 5. The learned counsel would submit that the certain conditions. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has submitted his application in order and he has also furnished the required documents and such being the position, he should not be deprived of right of holding a passport. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent cannot deny the issuance of duplicate passport on the ground of the implication of the petitioner in the criminal case and the petitioner has also filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court in respect of the case pending on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C.No.2500 of 2009 undertaking to appear before the Court as and when required and he would be represented by this counsel regularly for all the dates of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that it is for the investigating agency and the Court to take steps to ensure the appearance of the petitioner and as far as the respondent is concerned, if the application submitted by the petitioner is otherwise in order, there is no other legal impediment for him to issue the duplicate passport. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on an unreported order of this court dated 28.04.2010 made in W.P.No. 24427 of 2009, wherein, this Court held that a right of a person to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and only a competent Court through its order can prevent a person from traveling abroad by passing a suitable order by impounding the passport. It is further submitted that in the said decision, this Court by placing reliance on the provisions under the Passport Act, 1987 held that the passport can be given or renewed to a person, who has been implicated as an accused in a criminal case and it is for the Court to impose suitable condition in the event of permitting the said person to go abroad. Therefore, it is contended that there is no legal impediment for issuing the passport to the petitioner by the respondent. 7. Therefore, it is contended that there is no legal impediment for issuing the passport to the petitioner by the respondent. 7. Per contra, Mr.Parivallal, learned Standing counsel contended that the respondent has already sent a communication dated 21.02.2000 to the petitioner informing about the implication of the petitioner in a criminal case and as such expressed its inability to issue the duplicate passport. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the respondent has rightly withheld the issuance of passport on the ground of implication of the petitioner in a criminal case. 8. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. 9. At the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner was holding a passport earlier and he has misplaced the same in the Chennai Airport and he has given a report immediately to the Airport Police Station. The fact remains that the petitioner, being a Karate Champion and Expert Coach, has to undertake frequent travel to abroad in order to participate in International tournaments. It is pertinent to note that the respondent has sent a communication dated 21.02.2000 to the petitioner stating that his application was not considered only on the basis of his implication in a criminal case. 10. As far as the criminal case is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner has been acquitted in one case and in respect of other case, the fact remains that the said case was relating to a family dispute between brother of the petitioner and his wife and the petitioner, being the brother of the main accused, has been implicated in the said case along with other family members for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC etc. and the case is pending as on date in C.C.No.2500 of 2009 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, as per the statement made in the counter by the respondent herein. 11. It is needless to state that this Court in a number of matters granted the relief of permission to go abroad to the persons, who have been involved in a criminal case, by imposing suitable conditions. 11. It is needless to state that this Court in a number of matters granted the relief of permission to go abroad to the persons, who have been involved in a criminal case, by imposing suitable conditions. Merely because of involvement of a person in a criminal case, his movement cannot be restricted unreasonably and such person cannot be prevented from going abroad. It is pertinent to note that in a similar situation, this Court, in an unreported order dated 28.04.2000 made in W.P.No.24427 of 2009 (Nataraj Kumar v. The Regional Passport Officer) has held as hereunder: “7. …… It is made clear that a right of a person to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unless a competent Court interdicts or prevents a person from traveling abroad by impounding the passport, no investigating agency can simply retain the passport restraining the citizen from going abroad. Admittedly, the passport was not impounded as per the orders passed by the competent court. When the passport has no nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and no order has also been passed by a competent court to impound the passport, the respondent has no authority to retain the passport of the petitioner, especially, after the investigation was completed.” It is seen that in the said order, this Court also placed reliance on a certain provisions of the Passport Act and ultimately held as hereunder: “11. From the above statutory provisions contained in the Act and the guidelines contained in the Passport Manual, 2001, it is evident that passport can be given / renewed to a person, who is accused in a criminal case, only for a limited period, that too with an undertaking that the holder of the passport shall, if required by the Court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued……” 12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no legal impediment for issuing the duplicate passport to the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner has made several representations dated 26.06.2003, 29.10.2003 and 27.07.2010 and all these representations are yet to be considered by the respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no legal impediment for issuing the duplicate passport to the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner has made several representations dated 26.06.2003, 29.10.2003 and 27.07.2010 and all these representations are yet to be considered by the respondent. The passport authority/the respondent herein can very well consider the representations and also the application submitted by the petitioner and issue duplicate passport subject to the permission obtained by the petitioner from the criminal court, namely, V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, wherein, criminal case is pending. 13. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner also filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court, wherein, it is clearly stated by the petitioner in paragraph 16 as follows: “I state that I hereby give a solemn undertaking that I will face a trial and sure that I will get an acquittal. I state that before leaving the country I will apply for permission from the Hon’ble V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and on arrival I will surrender my passport in the Court. I state that no prejudice would caused to any person is a duplicate passport is issued to me on the other hand I will be seriously prejudiced and disappointed as I am regularly practicing for the tournament and I am sure to win laurels for the Country.” 14. In view of aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to direct the respondent to issue the duplicate passport to the petitioner if the application submitted by the petitioner is otherwise in order as the petitioner has given undertaking to appear before the Court as and when required and to be represented by his counsel regularly. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that on the issuance of such duplicate passport, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Court of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for seeking permission to go abroad by the furnishing the affidavit of undertaking and subject to the conditions which may be imposed by the learned Magistrate in respect of criminal case pending in C.C.No.2500 of 2009. This petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.