Sri. B T Srinivasa V. The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and The Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Passport Seva Kendra and The State of Karnataka, represented by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City

WP/15773/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Sri. B T Srinivasa, the petitioner, who sought to quash an order from the passport authority (respondent No. 2) that denied him a passport due to alleged suppression of material facts in his application. The petitioner argued that the denial was an infringement on his fundamental rights and was retaliatory in nature, stemming from a civil dispute with a neighbor. The court found that the petitioner had indeed suppressed crucial information regarding a previous passport application and a pending criminal case, which justified the passport authority's decision to deny the passport and impose a penalty of Rs.1,000. The court, however, allowed the petitioner to reapply for a passport if he could provide a court order allowing him to travel, as per the government's notification and the provisions of the Passport Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798546 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Indian Penal Code of 1986, Passport Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MUTHANNA; K KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D GANGADHARA
• Keywords: Civil Suit; Criminal Case; Material Suppression; Passport issuance; Police verification report
• Section: 34; 323; 504; 341; 354

Judgement Text

" - 1 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 15773 OF 2019 (GM-PP) BETWEEN: SRI. B T SRINIVASA, S/O LATE BELUR THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO. 497-C (OLD NO.500), 8TH CROSS ROAD, ANANDAPURA SLUM, YERRAPPA LANE, HAL 3RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 80 FEET ROAD, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PASSPORT SEVA KENDRA, SAI ARCADE, SURVEY NO.56/P, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, MARATHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 037. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, POLICE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K SAROJINI MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K DILIP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R3) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 11.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-E) DIRECT THE R-2 TO ISSUE PASSPORT TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND BY RELAXING THE CONDITIONS (ANNEXURE- F) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice to respondent No.3. 2. Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not providing the passport on the basis of the application made by him. It is the case of the petitioner that he is self employed and he is permanent resident of Bengaluru and doing social work in Bengaluru. He is also an income tax payee possessing Aadhar Card No.901307158273 and pan card holder. 3. Petitioner is also possessing properties in his name in Bengaluru. Accordingly, he applied for issuance of passport from respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the meanwhile, there was some dispute between the petitioner and his neighbor due to which a criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner along with civil suit. The criminal case came to be registered in crime No.90 of - 4 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 2016 on the file of 10th Additional CMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under section 341, 34, 323, 354, 504 of Indian Penal Code of 1986 which is pending adjudication. The case of petitioner is that he is on bail and that the said case is a false case in which he has been implicated by the neighbor to vent out the vengence, which is pending in the civil suit. It is his contention that its an offshoot of the civil suit to curtail the fundamental rights of the petitioner and his free movement of travel outside the country and also from obtaining the passport to travel outside the country. 4. Petitioner had made an application to the passport authority and on the basis of the call letter from the passport authority, he had appeared before the authority but however, the passport was refused on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed certain material in the application made seeking for issuance of passport, including the filing of civil case and the previous application filed by the petitioner himself in the year 2010 - 5 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 which was suppressed deliberately and it came to the notice of the respondent 1 and 2 that passport was not issued earlier due to adverse police verification reports and the file was closed. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 passport authority by the petitioner while filing the present application seeking for issuance of passport. Due to said suppression of material facts before the passport authority, the passport authority imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- which is paid by the petitioner. However so, on the verification made by respondents Nos.1 and 2, through police verification report, it was revealed that the criminal case bearing CC.No.59032 of 2018 is pending as against the petitioner before the 10th ACMM Court. 5. In view of non issuance of the passport and issuance of annexure-E for suppression of certain facts and information and by imposing a penalty of Rs.1,000/-, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to make his representation within 14 days. Instead of replying to - 6 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 the said show cause notice, petitioner has moved this court seeking an order to quash the notification issued at annexure-E and for a direction to the passport authority i.e., respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner while relaxing the conditions vide annexure-F. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed statement of objections and she has annexed two documents Annexure R1 and R2 and annexure R2 is the notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of External Affairs dtd:25.08.1993 which specifies that in case of any criminal matter pending before the criminal court in India, such applicants seeking for issuance of passport shall produce from the court concerned an order permitting them to depart from India and on such production, the passport authorities are at liberty to consider the same and issue the passport for the limited extent as specified in the said notification and also under the provisions of the Act. - 7 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 7. No doubt, in the present case, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact with regard to his previous application filed for issuance of passport and also the criminal case pending against him. However, now that the criminal cases are revealed by the verification of the passport authority respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the FIR is also annexed along with this petition for the afore stated offences, the petitioner is at liberty to produce necessary orders from the concerned court i.e., the 10th additional CMM court at Bangalore in CC.No.559032 of 2018 or any other court in which this matter is pending for having been implicated in criminal case seeking such suitable orders permitting him to travel outside India and on production of such order from the said court, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport strictly in accordance with law and following the process under the provisions of section 6 of the Passport Act. - 8 - WP No. 15773 of 2019 8. However, with regard to quashing of Annexure-E sought for by the petitioner, I do not find any cogent reason to accept the said contention as the petitioner has suppressed material facts and the same is liable for rejection. Accordingly, it is rejected. However, prayer (b) sought for by the petitioner requires to be favoured. Accordingly, directions are issued to the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and the extant notification on furnishing orders from the such court permitting the petitioner to travel outside the country. Accordingly, petition is disposed. 9. In view of the disposal of the writ petition IA 1/2019 would not survive for consideration and stands consigned to records. Sd/- JUDGE SNN CT: BHK "