UMESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for the second time seeking relief that the period of his existing passport be extended by the concerned Passport Authority-the 2 nd respondent Passport Officer.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he had earlier approached this Court and had obtained Ext.P4 judgment, wherein the Passport Officer was directed to consider his claim, but that Ext.P7 order has now been issued by the said Authority rejecting it merely saying that he is an accused in crime No.1151/2016 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Attingal, as is clear from Ext.P2 First Information Report. The petitioner asserts that going by Section 8 of the Passport Act, 1967 ('the Act' for short), extension of the period of passport by the Passport Authority does not require a Court order, and that, as is clear from Ext.P4 judgment, the passport was issued to him for a period of one year under the orders of this Court and consequently, that the Passport Authority must construe these directions to mean that an extension can also be granted. He contends that in any event of the matter, the pendancy of a case is not a legal bar for the Passport Authority in issuing a full validity passport, when it is renewed, as per Section 8 of the Act.

(3.) The Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that a statement has been filed on record wherein the following have been averred.