<p>The high court has directed the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) to consider the passport renewal request of a woman within six weeks without insisting upon any order from the criminal court.</p>.<p>The court said that though a criminal case is pending against the petitioner-woman, the same has been stayed by the high court making it impossible for her to seek permission from the criminal court as a requisite under August 25, 1993, notification issued under the Passport Act.</p>.<p>The petitioner challenged the September 6, 2021, endorsement issued by the RPO, Bengaluru, rejecting her application requesting for renewal of her passport. The petitioner claimed that all further proceedings in the criminal case pending before an additional chief metropolitan magistrate court at Bengaluru has been stayed by the high court on December 10, 2020. The central government defended the endorsement issued by the RPO, stating that a criminal case is still considered as pending even when the proceedings are stayed.</p>.<p>Justice Krishna S Dixit said that the requirement under the 1993 notification normally is applicable in ordinary circumstances, in the sense, the criminal proceedings are not stayed and hands of the trial judge are free to work. The bench observed that a contention to the contrary amounts to asking the citizen to do an impossible act.</p>.<p>The court further said that when all further proceedings in the criminal case are interdicted by a higher court, the notification cannot be pressed into service to deny request for renewal/re-issuance of passport, only on the ground that a criminal case is pending. “What is to be seen is the intent, content and invocability of the Notification. Otherwise, it amounts to burying the spirit of law by operating its black letter,” Justice Dixit said.</p>.<p>The court has directed the RPO to consider the petitioner’s application without insisting upon any order from the criminal court. The court, however, said the petitioner shall not travel abroad without leave of the criminal court concerned, regardless of whether she is being issued or not issued the passport.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest DH videos here</strong></p>
<p>The high court has directed the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) to consider the passport renewal request of a woman within six weeks without insisting upon any order from the criminal court.</p>.<p>The court said that though a criminal case is pending against the petitioner-woman, the same has been stayed by the high court making it impossible for her to seek permission from the criminal court as a requisite under August 25, 1993, notification issued under the Passport Act.</p>.<p>The petitioner challenged the September 6, 2021, endorsement issued by the RPO, Bengaluru, rejecting her application requesting for renewal of her passport. The petitioner claimed that all further proceedings in the criminal case pending before an additional chief metropolitan magistrate court at Bengaluru has been stayed by the high court on December 10, 2020. The central government defended the endorsement issued by the RPO, stating that a criminal case is still considered as pending even when the proceedings are stayed.</p>.<p>Justice Krishna S Dixit said that the requirement under the 1993 notification normally is applicable in ordinary circumstances, in the sense, the criminal proceedings are not stayed and hands of the trial judge are free to work. The bench observed that a contention to the contrary amounts to asking the citizen to do an impossible act.</p>.<p>The court further said that when all further proceedings in the criminal case are interdicted by a higher court, the notification cannot be pressed into service to deny request for renewal/re-issuance of passport, only on the ground that a criminal case is pending. “What is to be seen is the intent, content and invocability of the Notification. Otherwise, it amounts to burying the spirit of law by operating its black letter,” Justice Dixit said.</p>.<p>The court has directed the RPO to consider the petitioner’s application without insisting upon any order from the criminal court. The court, however, said the petitioner shall not travel abroad without leave of the criminal court concerned, regardless of whether she is being issued or not issued the passport.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest DH videos here</strong></p>
