Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Wasim s/o Abdul Rahim, applied for a passport. The Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai, issued a show cause notice dated 25.6.2008 stating that as per a report from the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, a criminal case (Crime No. 185 of 2000) was pending against the petitioner in court, and the petitioner had failed to disclose this pendency. The petitioner was asked to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken. The petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act and learned that the criminal case was pending. The petitioner then filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking a direction to the Passport Officer to issue the passport. The court considered the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f) which allows refusal if the applicant is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and proceedings are pending. The court noted that the petitioner had not been convicted and the case was pending. The court held that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar the issuance of a passport. The court directed the Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application afresh and issue the passport if no other legal impediment exists. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Passports Act - Issuance of Passport - Pending Criminal Case - Non-Disclosure - The petitioner applied for a passport but did not disclose a pending criminal case (Crime No. 185 of 2000). The Passport Officer issued a show cause notice. The court held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disentitle a person from obtaining a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and non-disclosure, while relevant, must be considered in context. The court directed the Passport Officer to consider the application afresh and issue the passport if no other impediment exists. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regional Passport Officer can refuse to issue a passport solely on the ground that the applicant failed to disclose a pending criminal case, and whether the pendency of a criminal case per se is a valid ground for refusal under the Passports Act, 1967.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application afresh and issue the passport to him if no other legal impediment exists. The rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- Passport issuance
- pending criminal case
- non-disclosure
- show cause notice
- Passports Act 1967
- Section 6(2)(f)
- Section 5(1)(b)
- Section 12
- fundamental right to travel
- Article 21
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 132
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2009
P.V. Hardas, Shrihari P. Davare
Bipinchandra K. Patil (holding for Hemant Surve) for petitioner; Alok Sharma for respondent no.1; K.J. Ghute Patil, APP for respondent no.3
Abdul Wasim s/o Abdul Rahim
The Union of India through the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai; The District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad; The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition seeking direction to issue passport despite pending criminal case and non-disclosure.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or direction to the Regional Passport Officer to issue a passport to him.
Filing Reason
The Passport Officer issued a show cause notice citing non-disclosure of a pending criminal case (Crime No. 185 of 2000) and threatened action, leading the petitioner to file the petition.
Previous Decisions
The Passport Officer had not yet refused the passport; only a show cause notice was issued. The petitioner had obtained information under RTI about the pending case.
Issues
Whether the pendency of a criminal case is a valid ground to refuse issuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Whether non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in the passport application automatically disentitles the applicant from obtaining a passport.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that mere pendency of a criminal case does not bar issuance of passport and that he had not been convicted.
Respondent (Union of India) argued that the petitioner failed to disclose the pending case, which is a material suppression, and thus action under Section 12 of the Passports Act could be taken.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disentitle a person from obtaining a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The Passport Officer must consider the application on its merits and cannot refuse solely on the ground of non-disclosure of a pending case without considering the circumstances.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, who was desirous of obtaining a passport, had submitted an application before the authorities seeking the issuance of passport to him.
The petitioner was served with a communication dated 25.6.2008 informing the petitioner that as per the report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad City, offence vide Crime No. 185 of 2000 was pending against the petitioner in the court of law.
The petitioner, on being served with the afore said communication, sought necessary instructions in respect of the pendency of Crime No. 185 of 2000.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for a passport. The Passport Officer issued a show cause notice on 25.6.2008. The petitioner obtained information under RTI and then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 5.1.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Passports Act, 1967: Section 6(2)(f), Section 5(1)(b), Section 12
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
