Tarun Agarwal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent passport authority to allow the application of the

petitioner for renewal of his passport and renew the passport of the petitioner earlier issued to him.â€​

A counter affidavit has been filed by Assistant Passport Officer, Dehradun on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it

has been stated that criminal prosecution is pending against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital for offence punishable

under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In para 3D of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that in a case where criminal prosecution is

pending against an applicant for passport, then he has to get an order passed by the Court concerned permitting him to leave the country.

No rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits, filed by the respondents, is filed.

In para 13 of the writ petition there is an admission that charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 3/7 of

Essential Commodities Act; but, in para 14 thereof, it has been stated that further proceedings in the case, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate,

was stayed by this Court in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not been

exonerated of the charge, which has been levelled against him.

In such view of the matter, in the absence of an order passed by the Court concerned permitting petitioner to leave the territory of India, the relief,

as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.