The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing a petition said that no hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport.
It is always th discretion of the court concerned and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, act and conduct of the accused as well as nature of alleged offence committed by him/her and stage of trial.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mohd Hasan.
The petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-
“i. Issue Writ, Order and direction in any nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Criminal Case under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow for securing the interest of justice.
ii. Issue Writ, Order and direction in any nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner and issue the passport to the petitioner irrespective of Case under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow for securing the interest of justice. “
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Passport was issued to the petitioner by the Passport Office, Lucknow bearing Passport which was valid from 26.09.2012 till 25.09.2023.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an application was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Civil Judge/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for grant of permission for renewal of passport, which was rejected by means of order dated 08.08.2024 observing therein that the Court has no jurisdiction for granting the permission of renewal of passport.
He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.
Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the order dated 08.08.2024 is totally illegal, perverse and arbitrary as the same is passed without application of judicial mind and also without considering the notification of Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, counsel for the Union of India has placed a notification of the Government of India dated 25.08.1993 and an Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
He has also placed an order passed by coordinate Bench of the Court dated 02.02.2024 passed in Application under Section 482 CrPC and submitted that there is no restriction to the trial court to direct for grant of permission for renewal of passport.
He further submitted that as per aforesaid notification and order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Court, the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, on its face appears to be passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the aforesaid notification. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and authorities may be directed to consider the case for renewal of his passport.
The Court observed,
After considering the arguments as advanced by the counsel for the parties as well as after perusal of record, the Court finds that Under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the citizens of the country are entitled for a passport.
Thus, the Court after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra) is of the view that right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and in addition thereto a careful reading of provisions of the Passport Act and the Notification dated 25.08.1993 along with the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 in the light of it’s legislative backgrounds, it is clear that passport or travel document of a person, who is facing trial can be refused by the authority concerned during pendency of his criminal case, but there is no statutory bar for giving no objection by the court concerned.
Some time on account of enmity or ill will one party enmesh the other party in a frivolous criminal case to settle his personal score, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to consider all aspects of the matter and surrounding circumstances while granting or refusing the no objection for renewal or reissue of passport or travel documents by the court concerned or by the authorities concerned and the trial in the above case is not likely to conclude very soon. These were relevant factors to be considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
The trial court had completely ignored the notification issued by Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993 as well as Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi while passing the impugned order for grant permission for renewal/re-issue of passport, thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside/reversed.
In view of above, in the light of the notification dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra) and considering the larger mandate of the Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Lucknow is hereby set aside and reversed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition with following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall move a fresh application along with a certified copy of this order for renewal/re-issue of his passport before the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow within 20 days from the date of this order.
(ii) In case such application is moved by the petitioner, within the time stipulated by the Court, the concerned Regional Passport Officer/authority shall decide the application and pass an order for renewal/re-issue of the passport of the applicant within 01 month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after completing the due formalities in accordance with law.
(iii) If the passport is renewed/re-issued to the petitioner, he shall inform and take permission from the trial court concerned before going abroad and he shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed as directed by the trial Court and he shall be bound by the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court, if any.
(iv) The trial Court, if grants permission to the petitioner to go abroad, may impose conditions in accordance with law, during the pendency of the case pending before it.
(v) The petitioner is also directed to submit the copy of the trial court’s order, if any, condition imposed by the trial court regarding permission to go abroad, before the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow.
The post Allahabad High Court sets aside trial court order denying accused from renewing passport appeared first on India Legal.