RAVI KUMAR PANASA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in failing to issue fresh passport bearing No.Z6316571 belonging to the petitioner herein for a period of ten years, for which he is eligible as directed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.234 of 2020 in S.C.No.638 of 2018 vide order dt.27/10/2020 and as per Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to extend the validity period of the new passport for a further period of 9 years, i.e., until 23/12/2031 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims to be an accomplished and reputed filmmaker and media entrepreneur and is the Managing Director of R.K. Media. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.8 in Crime No.52 of 2015 on the file of the SHO, Central Crime Station Police Station, D.D., Hyderabad for the offences under Ss. 20, 21 read with Sec. 8(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 which is pending trial vide S.C. No.638 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner was enlarged on bail vide orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2015 by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(3.) While matter stood thus, the petitioner 's passport bearing No.J0250792 issued on 5/8/2010 was set to expire on 4/8/2020 and therefore, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for renewal of his passport and submitted an application dt.4/8/2020. While considering the application of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent sought clarification from the petitioner in respect of the criminal case pending against him. The petitioner submitted a representation dt.26/8/2020 clarifying to the 2nd respondent, that the above crime was falsely foisted against him and pendency of the same is nowhere conclusive that he is guilty of the alleged crime. He also submitted that till he is found guilty, he is to be considered as innocent and that there were no travel restrictions imposed on him by the Court. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed an order dt.18/9/2020 rejecting the request made by the petitioner for renewal of his passport citing adverse police verification report, wherein the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.52 of 2015 in S.C.No.638 of 2018 before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad was stated. The 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to approach the Court where the above case is pending to obtain permission to travel abroad and in the event the Court accords such permission, the 2nd respondent can reconsider the application dt.4/8/2020.