Karamjit Singh v. Union Of India And ORS
No.M8408259 on 01.05.2015, which was valid up to 30.04.2025. Prior to its expiry, the petitioner applied for renewal of his passport vide application dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) and deposited the requisite fee. 2.1 During police verification, it surfaced that an FIR No.378 dated 12.11.2020, registered under Section 379-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was pending against the petitioner and the criminal trial was in progress. On account of pendency of the said criminal case, the passport application was kept pending by the passport authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, who, vide order dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) permitted the petitioner to apply for renewal of the passport. 2.
2 Upon production of the said order (Annexure P-2), the respondent - Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, issued a communication dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), asking the petitioner to produce a specific order from the trial Court permitting him to depart from India in terms of Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, failing which the request could not be processed.
2.3 In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition, bearing CWP No.1888 of 2025, before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) with a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's application for renewal of passport. 2.4 Thereafter, the respondent - Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, passed order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), thereby refusing renewal of the passport of petitioner. 2.5 The petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ petition, bearing CWP No.10096 of 2025, challenging the aforesaid
order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), however, the said writ petition was withdrawn vide order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), to approach the trial Court for seeking permission to depart from India in terms of Government Instructions issued vide G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. 2.6 Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application, bearing CRM No.468 of 2025, before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mohali, S.A.S. Nagar, seeking permission to go abroad and also seeking directions regarding renewal of the passport. However, the said application was disposed of vide order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-7), by observing that renewal/re-issuance of passport stands on a different footing from permission to travel abroad. It was further observed that the request for permission to travel abroad would be considered only after production of a renewed passport.
3.
In the aforementioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has merely sought renewal of his passport and not permission to travel abroad; that the right to travel is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and that pendency of a criminal case cannot be an absolute bar to renewal of a passport. It is further submitted that the order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) is arbitrary as it insists upon prior permission to depart from India even for renewal of passport. It is further submitted that renewal of passport and permission to travel abroad are distinct considerations and that the petitioner undertakes to seek permission from the trial Court whenever he intends to travel outside India. 5.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
contends that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against the order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) before the Appellate Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, which he has failed to avail. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, read with Government Instructions issued vide G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993; where criminal proceedings are pending, exemption can be granted only upon production of an order of the competent Court permitting departure from India, which the petitioner has not furnished. It is, thus, argued that the refusal order is a speaking order and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6.
Heard.
10.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.