NATARAJ KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER SHASTRI BHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings of the respondent connected with petitioner's passport No. Z1761262 and direct the respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner for the normal period of ten years instead of one year.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has passed B.Tech course and presently employed as General Manager of B.P.O. Division of HTC Global and his office is located at Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ), Tambaram, where 800 Computer Engineers are employed. The business of the Company involves handling out-sourcing work relating to accounting and also digital publishing. The petitioner has to travel frequently outside India, not only to canvass fresh business, but also to interact with the clients of the Company, outside India. When the petitioner went for renewal of his passport, renewal was granted for the period of one year from 12.2.2008 to 11.2.2009 on the ground that the petitioner is implicated in a criminal offence. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 17353 of 2008 and the said writ petition is pending. Again the petitioner submitted application for renewal of passport, and renewal is granted from 12.10.2009 to 11.10.2010. As renewal was not granted for the normal period of ten years, this writ petition is filed contending that pendency of C.B.I. case is not a ground to deny renewal of passport for a block period of ten years and the action of the respondent in not renewing passport for ten years is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the passport was originally impounded and subsequently it was returned to the petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 34926 of 2007 dated 4.1.2008 and as per Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967, the petitioner cannot claim normal period of renewal for 10 years. It is also stated therein that the Passport Manual 2001, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Consular, Passport and Visa Division, which has been updated till date, clearly states that while granting passport facility to persons, certain guidelines are to be followed. Following the said guidelines passport of the petitioner was renewed for a limited period and there is no illegality in the said order. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as the petitioner is facing criminal case, which is still pending before the competent Court, petitioner has to necessarily appear before the Criminal Court periodically and if ten year enblock period is given, there is a chance that the petitioner may not appear before the Criminal Court. The order dated 14.10.2008 mentioning the period of extension upto 11.10.2018 was issued inadvertently and the said mistake cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner. Petitioner's passport is now renewed upto 11.10.2010 and there is no illegality in the said order.