Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 689 (AP)

Rayachoti Penchalaiah v. Union of India

2022-07-28

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner is holding a passport bearing No.K7041380, issued on 06.08.2012 which is valid till 05.08.2022. It is stated that the petitioner is presently in Kuwait. As the passport is expiring, the petitioner applied for renewal of the passport vide application file No.KU0074607902722. The passport authority, after receiving a police verification report, is said to have forwarded an e-mail to the petitioner stating that further action would be taken after the police verification is received. 2. As no further steps were taken, the wife of the petitioner, who is also the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner, had obtained information from the local police and the petitioner came to know that he is shown as accused in crime No.45/2021 registered under Section 341, 353, r/w. Section 34 of IPC in Pullampeta Police Station. 3. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition with the contention that the inaction of the respondent authorities in renewing/reissuing the passport would result in the petitioner being left with no valid passport after 05.08.2022 and consequently, the petitioner would also be prosecuted in Kuwait for illegal stay without a passport in Kuwait. 4. The petitioner contends that even to come back to India, he would require renewal of the passport and that he is again willing to participate in an enquiry/ investigation that may be conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer. 5. Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in the case of Rahul Ravindran versus Union of India and others reported in 2021 Law Suit (Mad) 7748. He contends that in a similar situation where the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of a person staying abroad and facing a criminal investigation in India, directed the passport authorities to renew the passport of the said person for a limited period of time to enable the said person to come back to India. 6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit that in view of Section 6 of the Passport Act,1967 r/w Section 579 with notification bearing GSR No.570E dated 25.08.1993, the petitioner can very well approach the Criminal Court where the case is pending and file a similar undertaking for obtaining relief. 6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit that in view of Section 6 of the Passport Act,1967 r/w Section 579 with notification bearing GSR No.570E dated 25.08.1993, the petitioner can very well approach the Criminal Court where the case is pending and file a similar undertaking for obtaining relief. He would submit that the said Criminal Court would be better equipped to consider the request of the petitioner after taking into consideration the facts in the complaint filed against the petitioner. 7. Accepting the submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General poses certain problems. Firstly, the law, as decided by various Courts, has been that such a No Objection is to be taken from the Court which has taken cognizance of the case. Apart from this, the passport of the petitioner expires on 05.08.2022 and relegating to the petitioner to the criminal Court having jurisdiction over the said crime would render the entire exercise infructuous as the petitioner would not be able to obtain necessary orders from the Criminal Court within the stated time. 8. A further fact which needs to be taken into consideration is the assurance of the petitioner given, through his wife, who is a Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner that the petitioner would utilize the extended period of the renewal of the passport for coming back to India. 9. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to renew/re-issue the passport of the petitioner for a limited period of six (06) months to enable the petitioner to come back to India to face the investigation in the above crime. The said exercise is to be completed as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the fact that the passport of the petitioner would expire on 05.08.2022. 10. There shall be a further direction to the petitioner to file an undertaking before the competent Magistrate before whom the above crime is pending, that he would be returning back to India within the aforesaid six (06) months period for which the passport is being renewed or re-issued. In the event of the petitioner failing to return to India within the aforesaid period, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 would be entitled to impound the said passport. In the event of the petitioner failing to return to India within the aforesaid period, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 would be entitled to impound the said passport. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.