AKEEL ZAFAR CHEMMAD PUTHIYAPURAYIL Vs. CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER AND SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the stand taken by the Respondents in not accepting Ext. P7 for issuance of passport referring to the pendency of criminal case, which the Petitioner himself has conceded before the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court because of laxity on the part of the Respondents, however, the said writ petition was sought to be withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to approach this Court again.

(2.) After curing all the defects, a proper application as borne by Ext. P7 has been submitted by the Petitioner before the second Respondent on 02.05.2011, clearly mentioning the pendency of the criminal case, but then also the same was not accepted, stating that, unless and until clearance is obtained from the concerned Court, the application cannot be accepted, which according to the Petitioner is not correct or proper.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the earlier application preferred by the Petitioner was closed as per Ext.P6, for not producing the clearance from the Court, where the criminal case has been pending. It is stated that, there is no problem for accepting Ext. P7, but if Court clearance is not there, it has to be again closed, as the Respondents will not be in a position to process and proceed with the application.