- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ATEEQ AHMED v. PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1STDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.2658 OF 2021 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
ATEEQ AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL RAWOOF,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.33, A R FARM RAYANKERE,
CHOUAHALLI, H D KOTE ROAD
MYSORE - 570 008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER
PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
ROOM NUMBER 8 PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE
8THBLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD,
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO RENEW THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER
FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME PERMITTING THE
PETITIONER TO ATTEND HIS HOLY PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA
MADINA AND HAJJ IN SAUDI ARABIA ANNUALLY AND ETC.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-
B GROUP, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non- issuance of renewal of the subject passport; after service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned CGC, oppose the Writ Petition inter alia contending that under the new regime of law, there is no concept like renewal of the passport at all and that if the petitioner makes an appropriate application u/s 6(2)(f) read with Notification No.570(E) dated 25.8.1993 issued u/s 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, there would be no difficulty for considering the same favourably.
2. Learned CGC also points out that the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. CBI, (Criminal Appeal No. 1342/2017) is not applicable since the facts comprised therein were miles away from the facts of the case; this court is in broad agreement with this view inasmuch as in the subject case, the criminal proceedings were already disposed off whereas in the case at hands, criminal proceedings are still
3
pending; ordinarily, in such circumstances, the aspirant of the passport has to seek appropriate permission from the criminal court for traveling abroad, the right to travel so being a fundamental right vide Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, notwithstanding.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application as indicated above; if one is made, the respondents shall consider the same at the earliest and in any event within a period of two weeks, of course if the criminal court's permission as indicated above is furnished. It hardly needs to be stated that if an application seeking permission to travel abroad is made by the petitioner, the jurisdictional criminal court shall consider the same preferably within two weeks from the date it is made. All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
Alert