Shri R. Radhakrishna Kurup v. Kulanand Sushil Kumar Roy And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 958 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1700 OF 2021 IN WP/1488/2014 WITH WP/1488/2014 SHRI R. RADHAKRISHNA KURUP ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
KULANAND SUSHIL KUMAR ROY AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. K. C. Sant APP for Respondents: Mr. S. N. Morampalle Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 :Mr. A.G. Talhar ....
CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.
DATE : 01.09.2021 PER COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Perused the reply fled by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and GSR Notifcation dated 25.08.1993.
2.
This is application for renewal of Pass-port for the period of 10 years as per the provisions of Passport Act. The applicant is facing charges under Section 166, 167, 403 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint fled by Mr. R.R. Kurup. The passport of applicant has already expired on 26th August, 2020.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mr. Samip Nitin Ranjani Vs. Unio of India and Others in Writ Petition No. 12784 of 2016 wherein it was held that '' It has to be borne in mind that whenever a criminal complaint is pending against an applicant, who wishes to travel abroad, the Magistrate alone has a jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding his right to travel abroad. If the Magistrate is satisfed that the Applicant should not be permitted to travel abroad, he can reject his application. However, when an application is made for renewal of passport, the Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
It appears that the Central Government has issued a Notifcation by exercising a power vested in them under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in the said Notifcation, it has been mentioned that the passport can be renewed for a period of one year. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Notifcation issued by the Passport Authorities, this Court was pleased to clarify the said ambiguity in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra). The Passport Authorities do not have the right to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad or not and that right is vested in the Magistrate, who can impose conditions if an application is made, seeking permission to travel abroad. The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs.
business and service is a part of a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, which are imposed by the Act and by the Court.''
4.
In the present case the applicant was a Vigilance Ofcer in the Railways. Now he is working in other Department of Central Government. His son is studying in Australia, therefore, he required to visit Australia and for that purpose he can seeks the permission from the learned Judicial Magistrate to travel abroad. Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts I direct the Passport authority to consider the application for issuance of passport to the applicant for the period of ten years. It is clarifed that however, applicant to apply learned Judicial Magistrate for seeking permission to travel abroad. 5.
With this direction the application is disposed of. ( SURENDRA P. TAVADE ) JUDGE ysk