DEEPAK DWARKASINGH CHHABRIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai refusing the passport to the petitioner under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act for short ). Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is a citizen aid national of India. The petitioner was issued passport on 5th July, 1984. When the validity of this passport had expired on 4th July, 1989, the same was renewed for a further period of five years i. e. upto 4th July, 1994.

(2.) SOMETIME in 1986 the State had filed Special Case No. 4 of 1986 in the Court of the Special Judge at Pune against the petitioner and other for offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 147 (o) and 147 (p) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Accused No. 1 in the said Special Case No. 4 of 1986 made an application for discharge on the ground that he was not a public servant under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or under Section 21 of the IPC. The application was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. Accused No. 1 then filed Writ Petition No. 738 of 1992 before this Court. The said Writ Petition No. 738 of 1992 and the other companion petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench (Coram: A. C. Agarwal and I. G. Shah, JJ.) by judgment dated 12th/13th January, 1994 wherein the Bench held that the officers of the co-operative societies, as defined under Section 2 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, would not by virtue of Section 161 of the said Act, become public, servants under Section 21 of the (PC and under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On 29th March, 1994 the petitioner, who was accused No. 7, and accused Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 made an application to the Special Judge in view of the decision of the Division Bench submitting that the accused are not public servants under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or under Section 21 of the I. P. C. and, therefore, they should be discharged from Special Case No. 4 of 1986. The application filed by the said accused was disposed of by order dated 22nd November, 1994 wherein the learned Special Judge, after referring to the decision of the Division Bench dated 12th/13th January, 1994 held that the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 1986 were not public servants and, therefore, they could not be tried for offences committed by them as public servants and therefore the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the said case. The learned Special Judge also ordered that as far as other offences not relating to public servants were concerned, they should be returned to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Pune for presenting the same either to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate, First Class having jurisdiction. The learned Special Judge also ordered discharge of all the accused with direction to remain present before the concerned Court, after they receive the summons for appearance before it.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the validity of the petitioners passport expired on 4th July, 1994. The petitioner, therefore, made an application to the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai for renewal of his passport which had expired on 4th July, 1994. By letter dated 2nd November, 1995 the passport authority informed the petitioner that he proposed to refuse the passport facility to the petitioner Under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act on account of pending criminal case against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. By the said letter the petitioner was given opportunity to lead his case before the passport authority. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter he had several meetings with the passport authority and the petitioner requested the passport authority to give inspection or furnish photo copies of the documents upon which he has drawn inference that a case against the petitioner was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. By letter dated 14th February, 1996, the petitioner again called upon the passport authority to give inspection or to furnish photo copies of the documents upon which he had proposed the rejection of the petitioners application for renewal of passport. By letter dated 22nd February, 1996 the Regional Passport Officer called the petitioner at his office on any working day between 10. 00 a. m. to 12. 00 noon. It is the case of the petitioner that despite several efforts to contact the passport authority to seek an appointment, the petitioner got an appointment only on 15th April, 1996 wherein the passport authority intimated to the petitioner that passport could not be issued to him as the passport authority has received information that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the refusal of the passport authority to renew his passport, the petitioner has filed the present petition.