- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12158 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. N.S. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE N. SUBBARAYA, NO. X- 174, SOMWARPET TOWN, M.D. BLOCK, SOMWARPET, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. 2. SMT. VANITHA P, W/O N.S. JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO. X- 174, MAHADESHWARA BLOCK, SOMWARPET TOWN, SOMWARPET KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHANUSH MENON, ADVOCATE) AND: 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, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-1, BEARING NO. OBJ/320590879/25 A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNX-B, AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: ”i. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the communication dated 27.01.2025, issued by the 1st Respondent, bearing No.OBJ/320590879/25, a copy of which is herein produced as ANNEXURE B as illegal and void. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 ii. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the communication dated 27.01.2025, issued by the 1st Respondent, bearing No.OBJ/320590883/25, a copy of which is herein produced as ANNEXURE B1, as illegal and void. iii. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent to process the applications of the Petitioners bearing No.BNM077274399725 and No.BNM077274374125 herewith produced as ANNEXURE B and ANNEXURE B1, respectively reissue their passports in accordance with law. 2. Heard Shri Dhanush Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Shanthi Bhushan H., learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioners are holders of an Indian passport. The passport is said to have expired, The expiry of the passport leads the petitioners to the doors of the regional passport office seeking its re-issuance/renewal. It is not done, on the score that the criminal case is pending against the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said FIR in crime No.125/2023 is stayed at the hands of this Court in Crl.P.No.10902/2023. 5. In that light, he would become entitled to a regular passport. He would seek to place reliance upon the order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 passed by this Court in WP.No.18066/2023, disposed on 14.02.2024, has held as follows: “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. 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; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 (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; (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.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 (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 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 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. 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 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 knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance.” In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of this Court supra, which covers the issue in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioners seeking renewal / re-issuance of the passport within an outer limit of two weeks from today or if not earlier. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16877 WP No. 12158 of 2025 c. It is needless to observe that such consideration shall happen only in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT: BHK