THAZHATHEVEETTIL NOUSHAD Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in a case pending trial before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore. The said court permitted the petitioner to go abroad in connection with his business, as per Ext.P3 order passed on 3.11.2015. The permission was granted as per Ext.P3 order to go abroad for a period of three months. It appears that when the petitioner moved the court of the Magistrate later for extension of the period, the same was not granted. The petitioner challenged the said decision of the Court of the Magistrate, before the High Court of Madras in Criminal Original Petition No.22055 of 2016. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the High Court of Madras in the said original petition. In Ext.P1, the High Court took the view that since the petitioner was granted permission earlier to go abroad on conditions and since the petitioner has complied with those conditions, the application of the petitioner for permission to go abroad should have been granted by the Magistrate. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner has been issued a passport on 22.2.2017 valid till 22.2.2018. According to the petitioner, with the aforesaid passport, the petitioner cannot effectively undertake any travel abroad since at least six months validity is required for the travel document to travel abroad. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the authorities under the Passports Act to issue him a passport valid for a period of ten years.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the Assistant Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents in the statement is that since the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case, he is not entitled to hold a passport which enables him to go abroad; that nevertheless, passports are being issued to persons who are accused in criminal cases, in terms of Government of India notification No.G.S.R.570(E) dated 25.8.1993, if the court permits such persons to leave India and that the validity of the passports issued to such persons will be as directed by the court and if no period is specified by the court, they will be granted a passport valid for a period of one year. According to the respondents, since there is no direction by the criminal court or by the High Court to grant a passport to the petitioner valid for a particular term, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Solicitor General.