FAREED KHAN PONNELAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be a businessman and a film producer submits that, on account of his business, he has to travel frequently out of India. He says that he has been issued with a Passport bearing No. P4125025 by the 2nd respondent-Regional Passport Officer on 31.10.2016, the validity of which expires on 30.10.2019. He then submits that when he attempted to make a formal application for this purpose, he was informed that without orders from this Court, such application will not be considered because he is involved in certain Crimes.

(2.) The petitioner says that even though there are ten Crimes originally registered against him in the year 2014 by the Kalpeni Police Station, Lakshadweep, nine of them have been closed and practically therefore, that there is only one Crime now against him. He adds that with respect to the Crime pending against him, he has already obtained two judgments from this Court, namely, Exts. P3 and P4, whereby, it has been clarified that the petitioner can travel abroad even without permission of the Court. He thus, prays that the 2nd respondent - Regional Passport Officer be directed to accept the application to be made by him and issue him a full validity passport.

(3.) Sri Jayasankar Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel, submits, in answer to the afore assertions made by Smt. Chincy Gopakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner's version is not fully accurate because, the Judgments referred to by him, namely, Exts. P3 and P4 has also certain additional directions. He however, says that since Smt. Chincy Gopakumar now asserts that this Court has, in Crl. M.C. No. 2527 of 2014, recorded that the Union Territory of Lakshadweep will proceed only in Crime No. 5 of 2014 of Kalpeni Police Station and that the investigation in the other Crimes will not be proceeded, they are willing to consider the petitioner's application for passport, if made by him in terms of law, within a short period.