Passports Act| ‘Proceeding’ Does Not Mean Only A Criminal Case Registered After Submission Of Chargesheet & Cognizance Taken: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court said that under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, the word ‘proceeding’ does not mean only a criminal case registered after submission of chargesheet and cognizance taken.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a woman seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the passport authorities to process the application and renew her passport.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Surendra Singh observed, “In view of the above, though the Circular may never be read to offer a narrow view to interpret the word "proceeding', to mean only a criminal case registered after submission of charge sheet and cognizance taken. That view of the 'Executive authority' may not co-exist with the law declared by the coordinate bench, of which one of us (Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh) was a member.”
Senior Advocate Anurag Khanna appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Yogendra Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the directions issued in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:9963-DB) requiring the applicant (to reissue passport), to apply to the court for permission under whose territorial jurisdiction an FIR may have been registered, for permission to travel abroad as a pre-condition for re-issuance of passport is contrary to the own Circular of Government of India.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “Since we do not find any good ground to take a view different from that expressed in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra), the prayer sought on the strength of the Circular dated 10.10.2019, may not be granted contrary to the law declared by the coordinate bench.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the terms laid down in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar case.
Cause Title- Rita Verma v. Union of India and 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:35201-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anuraj Khanna and Advocate Raghav Dev Garg.
Respondents: Advocate Yogendra Kumar
