Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20348 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Jaiswal Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tiwari,Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Prashant Singh
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Singh, learned Counsel for the Central Government.
Briefly stated that the petitioner is a business man engaged in Trade of Hardware and Cement. It is stated in Paragraph 3 of the writ petition that for expansion of his business, the petitioner has decided to go to learn business formula from foreign country i.e. Malesia. Therefore, he applied for passport before the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow by submitting online application on 5.4.2018. The Case Crime No.182 of 2015 P.S.- Koraon, District- Allahabad under Section 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)X of S.C & S.T. Act was registered against the petitioner on 27.6.2015, in which a charge sheet has been submitted by the I.O. on 25.8.2015. The aforesaid criminal case is still pending. Another Case Crime No.188 of 2011 P.S.-Koraon, District-Allahabad under Section 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C is still pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Allahabad.
In these circumstances, respondent no.2 has not passed any order on the application of the petitioner for passport. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 30.5.2019 passed by Division Bench in this Court in Writ C No.19279 of 2019 (Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. The Union of India and 2 others).
Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government representing the respondents has no objection to the request made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
In the case of Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui (supra), a Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 30.5.2019 as under :-
"Heard Sri Mir Sayed for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Kumar Pal for the respondents.
The writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing the Passport Officer, respondent-2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and issue a temporary passport for limited period in his favour for going to pilgrim of Haj yatra.
It has been stated that the petitioner has applied before the Passport Officer for issuing passport on 22.2.2019 but in the application, the petitioner has disclosed two criminal cases pending before him. On the ground of pendency of two criminal cases, the Passport Officer is not issuing passport, although criminal cases pending against the petitioner is related to minor offences i.e. under Section 323, 504, 506 and 216 IPC. He submits that under the Circular dated 25.8.1993, the passport authority has been authorized to issue a short term passport for the purposes of pilgrim. He also relied upon the judgement of this Court in Salim Khan Vs. Union of India and others, 2019 (132) All Law Report 286 (D.B.) in which this Court has permitted the petitioner to move an application for grant of permission to go abroad, before the court concerned where the criminal proceeding was pending and if permission is granted then the petitioner shall given liberty to produce before Passport Officer along with the permission granted by the court for issuance of passport.
In the light of above judgement, we dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to move a proper application seeking permission to go abroad before the court concerned where the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is pending and if the permission is granted to the petitioner by the court concerned then the petitioner may produce the permission before the Passport Officer, respondent-2 who shall consider the same in accordance with the Circular dated 25.8.1993 and pass appropriate order in this respect within a period of one month from the date of producing of the permission granted by the competent court. "
Since, both the learned Counsel for the parties, has jointly agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in case of Ishtiyak Ahmad Siddiqui (supra), therefore, this writ petition is disposed of on the same terms and conditions.
Order Date :- 20.6.2019 S. Singh