2018 (9) TMI 2114 - HC - Indian Laws

Non-consideration of request for grant of passport - petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the highest tax payer and owns properties worth crores of rupees and is in urgent need of passport, however, his request was not considered by the respondent, due to pendency of the criminal cases, though there is a circular to the effect that the pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for issuance of passport - HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the first respondent needs interference and hence, the same is set aside. The petitioner is directed to approach the respondent by filing an application seeking issuance of passport, with full and correct details relating to pendency of the criminal cases against him and enclosing all the required order/permission obtained from the trial Court. On such approach, the respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, for issuing passport. Writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petitioner's request to quash the order denying passport issuance based on pending criminal cases.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the court seeking to quash an order dated 10.02.2017 by the first respondent, which refused to consider the petitioner's request for a passport due to pending criminal cases. The petitioner, represented by a Senior Counsel, argued that despite being a significant taxpayer with substantial property holdings, the passport request was denied solely due to the pending criminal cases. The petitioner highlighted a circular stating that the pendency of criminal cases should not hinder passport issuance.

The first respondent, through its counsel, presented a memo dated 10.09.2018, requesting the petitioner to provide an undertaking-affidavit detailing all pending criminal cases as per a circular from the Ministry of External Affairs. The respondent also advised the petitioner to seek permission from the trial courts to travel abroad for passport issuance. In response, the petitioner's Senior Counsel assured readiness to provide all necessary details regarding the pending criminal cases and agreed to file applications for required permissions from the trial courts.

The court intervened, setting aside the impugned order by the first respondent. The court directed the petitioner to reapply for a passport, including full details of pending criminal cases and all permissions obtained from the trial courts. Upon such reapplication, the respondent was instructed to consider the request on its merits and in compliance with the law for passport issuance. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.