Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 150 (GUJ)

Rutul Atulkumar Shukla v. Union of India

2019-02-20

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2019
ORDER : 1. By way of this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent authority be directed to issue/renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of five/ten years, pursuant to the application dated 5.2.2019. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rawal for the petitioner and learned Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.Amin for the respondent authority. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authority issued the passport in favour of the petitioner bearing no.K6051058. The said passport was issued on 20.7.2012 which was valid upto 19.7.2022. It is submitted that in the year 2016, the petitioner became the victim of fraud perpetrated by one Mr.Raj Vasudev Gurnani and others who promised the petitioner a permanent job in Canada after training at Bangalore. It is submitted that the FIR is registered against the said person i.e. Mr.Raj Gurnani. In the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner is shown as one of the witnesses. However, when the passport of the petitioner was found with the said accused, the said passport was seized by the investigation agency. It is submitted that the petitioner, therefore, submitted an application before the concerned Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code' for short) for return of the muddammal passport of the petitioner. It is contended that the concerned Magistrate, by an order dated 5.6.2017, returned the passport to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner has complied with the said conditions. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent authority for renewal of the passport and therefore the respondent authority has renewed the passport for a period of one year i.e. from 28.12.2017 to 27.12.2018. Thus, the respondent authority has renewed the passport for a period of one year though there are no criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that recently the petitioner has submitted an application on 5.2.2019 for renewal of the passport for a period of five years. The respondent authority has not considered the request of the petitioner and orally informed him that the petitioner has to obtain the orders of this Court to the aforesaid effect. 4. It is submitted that recently the petitioner has submitted an application on 5.2.2019 for renewal of the passport for a period of five years. The respondent authority has not considered the request of the petitioner and orally informed him that the petitioner has to obtain the orders of this Court to the aforesaid effect. It is, therefore, contended that when the petitioner is not an accused in any of the criminal proceedings, the respondent authority ought to have renewed the passport of the petitioner for a period of atleast five years. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner is still not decided by the respondent authority and therefore appropriate direction be issued to the respondent authority. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Rawal has placed reliance upon the order dated 19.1.2017 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.418 of 2017 and order dated 15.2.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.21190 of 2018. It is submitted that even where the concerned applicant was an accused in criminal proceedings, this Court has directed the respondent authority to issue passport for a period of five years whereas in the present case, the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal case and therefore appropriate direction be issued. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Amin submitted that the request of the petitioner will be considered by the respondent authority as the petitioner is not accused in any criminal case. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties and in view of the material produced on record, it has emerged that the petitioner is not an accused in any criminal proceedings as passport was found from the possession of one Mr.Raj Gurnani against whom the FIR is filed. The said passport of the petitioner was seized by the investigation agency as the muddammal and the petitioner is shown as one of the witnesses in the said criminal proceedings. The competent criminal Court has returned the passport to the petitioner when the application under Section 451 of the Code was filed. Thereafter, the respondent authority also renewed the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year. However, there is no reason for the respondent authority not to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of at least five years. 8. Thereafter, the respondent authority also renewed the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year. However, there is no reason for the respondent authority not to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of at least five years. 8. This Court, in the aforesaid two cases, issued direction to the respondent authority to renew the passport of the applicant for a period of five years wherein the concerned applicants were accused in criminal proceedings pending before the concerned Courts whereas in the present case, the applicant is not an accused in any criminal proceedings. 9. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The application of the petitioner which is pending dated 5.2.2019 before the respondent authority shall be decided in view of the aforesaid observation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Direct service is permitted.