SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a citizen of India but is currently residing in France. A passport was issued to him on 12/7/2018 which expired on 11/7/2020. He applied for re-issuance thereof vide application dtd. 6/8/2020 submitted at the India Visa Application Centre Paris. An appointment was given to him for 25/8/2020. On 2/7/2021, he received a text message from the office of respondent No. 2 that upon police verification having been done, it has come to light that FIR No. 105 dtd. 26/4/2008 registered at Police Station Nakodar, District Jalandhar under Ss. 307, 342, 323, 148, 149 IPC was pending and he was, accordingly, advised to take up the case with the police authorities or the Court. Thus, a legal notice dtd. 25/8/2021 (Annexure P-3) was submitted on behalf of the petitioner asking for issuance of interim NOC/passport so that he could come to India to face trial in the pending FIR in which he has been declared a proclaimed offender. A corrigendum dtd. 6/9/2021 was issued to the legal notice as there were errors in the same. Yet, no reply was received.

(2.) Vide order dtd. 9/11/2021, notice of motion was issued as it had been argued that the Passport Rules, 1980 permit issuance of an emergency certificate to travel to India in situations such as the present one.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the first instance the petitioner travelled to Spain in the year 2008. Since then he has not returned to India. He was made an accused in absentia and challan was also presented in absentia. Thus, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner before he was declared as a proclaimed offender. The order is patently illegal and can not be sustained in law. Thus, the passport of the petitioner deserves to be reissued. Reliance has been placed upon Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata vs. Union of India, 2020(10) SML KAR 1.