CRL.M.C./1613/2020 of NAVNEET BHUTANI Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 1613/2020

NAVNEET BHUTANI

..... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.N.Siddiqui and Mr.Virender Kasana, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for State and SI Sanjeev, PS Neb Sarai, New Delhi Mr.Manish Sharma, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT O R R % 19.08.2020

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

CRL.M.C. 1613/2020

1.The petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and correctness of impugned order dated 22.07.2020 passed by learned MM-03, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi and seeking issuance/renewal of passport for full validity duration of 10 years pursuant to the NOC (without duration) for renewal already granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.05.2020.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though his passport which has expired on 11.07.2020 has been revalidated for further period of one year, he seeks direction from this Court that the same may be revalidated, if not for 10 years, at least for period of five years.

3.On the petitioner seeking revalidation of his passport, the learned

Trial Court vide order dated 21.05.2020, granted no objection for issuance of the passport to the petitioner with direction to the passport authority that the passport may be issued as per rules. Accordingly, as per the procedure and law, passport authority revalidated passport for period of one year.

4.It is not in dispute that the similar issue came before the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 1524/2015 titled ‘Prashant Bhushan vs. Union of India & Ors.’ and the same was decided on 07.01.2016, as per the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 and thereafter memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. The Division Bench of this Court has held that un-equal cannot be treated equal and that passport cannot be revalidated for the fullest period of 10 years.

5.It is not in dispute that as per office memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the passport is to be issued to every such citizen of India who has criminal cases pending in India on the grounds i.e for the period specified in the order of the Court referred to above, if Court specifies period for which the passport has to be issued; or if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for period of one year. Thus, as per GSR 570(E) sub-clause (i) and (ii) of sub-clause (a) of clause 2, specified that if the criminal case is pending, passport shall be revalidated only for period of one year unless specified period is mentioned by the Court.

6.The petitioner approached the Trial Court on the ground that his passport was to expire on 11.07.2020 and he being frequent flier needed to keep his passport valid with at least six months prior validity so as to enable him to visit any foreign country. Hence, permission be granted to revalidate his passport. Vide order dated 22.05.2019, the Court directed that passport

may be revalidated as per rules. Accordingly, as per GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 as mentioned above which is reproduced in office memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the passport authority issued passport for period of one year. Thus, I find no illegality or perversity in issuance of passport for period of one year.

7.Thereafter, the petitioner moved application before the Trial Court stating therein that the petitioner is frequent flier and he has business abroad and he has to frequently travel outside India, therefore, if the passport is issued for 10 years, no prejudice will be caused to anyone. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 22.07.2020 dismissed the application stating that order dated 21.05.2020 has already been passed and, therefore, no further order is required to be passed.

8.Learned APP for State/respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant have opposed the present petition by stating that if the specific period is not mentioned by the Court then as per GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and office memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the passport shall be revalidated for further period of one year.

9.In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents, I do not dispute and so far as the validity is concerned and whether it should be extended to the fullest period of 10 years, the same has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Prashant Bhushan’s case (supra).

10.This Court has to consider the issue whether passport can be revalidated for period of less than 10 years. In GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and office memorandum dated 10.10.2019 it is specifically mentioned that if the Court specified period for which passport is to be

issued then the passport shall be issued for period as specified by the Court, where no period either for issuance of passport or for the term abroad is specified in such order the passport shall be issued for period of one year. The said GSR 570(E) does not put bar on the Court that in every circumstance, the passport to be issued only for period of one year. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner is frequent flier. He has business in abroad and as per the direction of the Trial Court, without permission of the Trial Court, he cannot travel abroad, therefore, if the validity of the passport is extended for five year, it is not contrary to GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and the law settled by this Court in Prashant Bhushan’s case (supra).

11.Admittedly, there are cases pending against the petitioner in the Criminal Courts in India and without the permission of the Court, he cannot travel abroad, therefore, I am of the view that if the passport authority is directed to revalidate/issue passport to the petitioner for period of five years, no prejudice will be caused to anyone.

12.In view of the facts and law discussed above, I hereby direct the passport authority to revalidate the passport of the petitioner for period of five years.

13.It is made clear that passing of this order shall not give permission to the petitioner to travel abroad unless specific permission is sought from the Trial Court.

14.It is further made it clear that the petitioner shall take permission to go abroad from all the Courts where cases against him are pending and permission granted by one Court shall not be treated as permission granted by all the Courts.

15.It is also made clear that this order is passed based on the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the present case and hence cannot be treated as precedent in dissimilar case.

16.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

17.Copy of this order be transmitted to Regional Passport Authority, Delhi and Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Delhi and Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

18.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through email. also forwarded to the learned counsel through email.

AUGUST 19, 2020/dkb

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J