-1-

NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 R

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18066 OF 2023 (GM-PASS)

BETWEEN:

SHARATH CHANDRASEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O RACHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
FLAT NO. 204,
HM GLENVILLE APARTMENTS,
NO. 31/11, 15TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 052.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
SOUTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI – 110 001.

HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT:

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,
BENGALURU, 80 FEET ROAD,
 -2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

KORAMANGALA, 8TH BLOCK,

BENGALURU – 560 095.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.PRIYANKA S.BHAT, CGC)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF HIS PASSPORT
BEARING NO. K8020859 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO RENEW THE
PETITIONER PASSPORT (BEARING NO. K8020859 (ANNX-B).

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to consider the

petitioner’s application for renewal / re-issuance of his

passport.

2. Heard Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned senior counsel

along with Sri Kashyap N.Naik, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. Priyanka S. Bhat, learned Central

Government Counsel for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be a lawyer by profession,

registered himself with the Bar Council of Karnataka. Petitioner

also claims to have registered in New York State Bar of the

 -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

United States. He is said to be holding a passport issued by the

Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru, on 05.04.2013, which was

valid till 04.04.2023. Six months prior to the expiry of the

passport, the petitioner submits an application seeking renewal

/ re-issuance of passport.

4. In consideration of the application, a police verification

process is undertaken for such re-issuance / renewal. It is

averred that during the police verification, it is known that the

petitioner is embroiled in three proceedings. One

M.C.No.2679/2022 which was initiated at Bengaluru against his

wife, is now transferred to Lucknow in terms of an order passed

by the Apex Court; another proceeding in C.C.No.621/2022

filed by the wife against the petitioner seeking maintenance

under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the third proceeding is a

proceeding instituted by the wife in Crl.Misc.No.2524/2022

under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic

Violence Act, 2012. All proceedings are pending before the

concerned jurisdictional Courts at Lucknow. At the time of

police verification, the petitioner informs the police about all the

aforesaid proceedings.
 -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

5. A fourth proceeding is a crime registered by the

petitioner in Crime No.157/2022 against his wife invoking

Sections 384, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The averment

in the petition is that, as a counter blast, the wife also registers

a crime in Crime No.164/2022 before the jurisdictional police at

Lucknow for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504 and

506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961. The petitioner has challenged the same before the

High Court of Allahabad and the said challenge is pending

consideration.

6. On 16.03.2023, the petitioner receives a letter from

the Regional Passport Office informing the petitioner that they

have received an adverse verification report from the police and

seeks a written explanation. The petitioner replies to the notice

enclosing all the documents as was sought for. No response

comes about. Thereafter, the petitioner approaches the

respondent and explains that his passport requires to be re-

issued / renewed, no action is taken. It is therefore, the

petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

 -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

7. The learned senior counsel would submit that the

passport is not reissued / renewed by the respondent on the

score that there are three cases pending against the petitioner.

One, a case instituted by the wife under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C.; another case instituted by the wife invoking Section 12

of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2012

and a crime in Crime No.164/2022 for the offences under

Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned senior

counsel would submit that the crime in Crime No.164/2022 has

been stayed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in

Crl.Misc.Writ Petition No.9651/2022.

8. Learned Central Government Counsel representing the

respondent – Union of India would refute the submissions to

contend that there are three proceedings pending against the

petitioner and therefore, the passport cannot be issued as is

sought by the petitioner in the application. No fault can be

found in the act of the respondent in not considering the

application submitted for renewal of passport.

 -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel

representing the respondent and have perused the material on

record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my

consideration is, whether the re-issuance or the renewal of

the passport can be denied on the score that a FIR is

registered against the holder of the passport?

10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and

requires no reiteration. The issue lies in a narrow compass,

with regard to the action of the respondent in not reissuing the

passport as was sought by the petitioner. As observed, the

petitioner is a holder of an Indian passport, which was issued to

him on 05.04.2013 and its validity was upto 04.04.2023. The

petitioner, six months before its expiry i.e., on 10.11.2022,

submitted an application seeking renewal of his passport. It is

not considered on the score that there are three cases pending

against the petitioner, which are noted hereinabove. The

tenability or otherwise of such non-consideration is required to

be noticed, for which certain provisions of the Passports Act,

1967 (for short ‘the Act’), are necessary to be considered.

 -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

Section 6 of the Act deals with refusal of passports / travel

documents, it reads as follows:

““6. Refusal of passports, travel

documents, etc.—(1) Subject to the other
provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall
refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any
foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of
the following grounds, and on no other ground,
namely:—

(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to,

engage in such country in activities prejudicial to
the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(b) that the presence of the applicant in

such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental
to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the applicant in

such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the
friendly relations of India with that or any other
country;

(d) that in the opinion of the Central

Government the presence of the applicant in such
country is not in the public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this

Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a
passport or travel document for visiting any
foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section
(2) of section 5 on any one or more of the
following grounds, and on no other ground,
namely:—

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of

India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to,

engage outside India in activities prejudicial to
the sovereignty and integrity of India;
 -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

(c) that the departure of the applicant from

India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the
security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant

outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the
friendly relations of India with any foreign
country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time

during the period of five years immediately
preceding the date of his application, been
convicted by a court in India for any offence
involving moral turpitude and sentenced in
respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than
two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an

offence alleged to have been committed by
the applicant are pending before a criminal
court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the

appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the
applicant has been issued by a court under any
law for the time being in force or that an order
prohibiting the departure from India of the
applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated

and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred
in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central

Government the issue of a passport or travel
document to the applicant will not be in the public
interest.”

(Emphasis supplied)

It is the afore-quoted provision is what is necessary to be

considered for the resolution of the issue in the lis. It

 -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

mandates that a passport or a travel document can be denied

to a holder of the passport, if any proceeding is pending,

against him before any criminal court in India. The proceedings

that are pending against the petitioner are as afore-quoted.

Three proceedings against him and, one instituted by him.

11. In furtherance of the afore-quoted statutory

provision, the Ministry of External Affairs had issued a

notification in Notification No.GSR570(E) on 25.08.1993, as to

what must be done in cases where there are pending cases

before the criminal court, against the holder of a passport. This

is further clarified by another Office Memorandum dated

10.10.2019, the relevant clause of which, reads as follows:

“(vi) In case where the secondary Police verification

is also ‘Adverse’, it may be examined whether the details
brought out in the police report match the undertaking
submitted by the applicant. It may be noted that mere
filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not
come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and that
criminal proceedings would only be considered
pending against an applicant if a case has been
registered before any Court of law and the court
has taken cognizance of the same.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The clarification is rendered by the Ministry of External

Affairs that mere filing of FIR and cases under investigation

 - 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

would not come under the purview Section 6(2)(f) of the Act

and the criminal proceedings would only be considered when

pending, and the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the

offence, which would presuppose that the charge sheet has

been filed by the Officer in-charge of a police station.

12. In the light of the aforesaid clarification, in cases

where the proceedings are pending against the holders of the

passports, when they seek renewal or re-issuance, it cannot be

denied on the ground that the proceedings are pending against

those holders of the passports only in cases, where the

proceedings are at the stage of crime, and the concerned

criminal Court has not taken cognizance of the offence. Any

other proceeding pending invoking any other law, will not

become an impediment for the Passport Authorities for issuance

/ re-issuance / renewal of passport. Therefore, it is expected of

the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the

clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated

10.10.2019 and not deny re-issuance / renewal of passport to

those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases

are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned Court is

not yet take cognizance, and not drive every passport holder to
 - 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6357
WP No. 18066 of 2023

knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their

grievance.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

a. The writ petition is allowed.

b. Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider the

application submitted by the petitioner seeking

renewal / re-issuance of the passport within an outer

limit of two weeks from today or if not earlier.

c. It is needless to observe that such consideration shall

happen only in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-
JUDGE

NVJ
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42