# Lalitesh Pati Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 101 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-10-11 - **Case number:** Writ-C No. 6971 of 2022 - **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalitesh-pati-tripathi-v-union-of-india-ors-47659 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law - Passport Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc - passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India - However, the Central Government has issued a notification dated 25th August 1993, stating that individuals with pending criminal proceedings, can request an exemption from the passport issuance conditions, before the competent criminal court - They can seek an order from the concerned criminal court allowing them to depart from India (para 3, 4,6) Disposed off . (E-5) List of Cased cited: Prashant Bhushan Vs U.O.I. & anr. Writ Petition(c) 1524 of 2015; ## Text 10 All. Lalitesh Pati Tripathi Vs. Union of India & Ors. 101 section 122 for determination of tax and the penalty leviable which, subject to the appeal would govern the issues in between the department and the assessee. 28. In the present case, the department has proceeded to determine the tax liability as well as penalty only under the provisions of Section 129 of the Act, which is not contemplated or intended. On a plain reading of Section 129, there is no provision under section 129 for determination of tax due, which can be done only by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, as the case may be. 29. As the proceedings have been initiated and concluded only under section 129 and the owner of the goods has not come forward for payment of such penalty as has been determined, the entire action of determining the tax and penalty under section 129(1) as has been done by means of the impugned order and upheld in the appellate proceedings, impugned before this Court, I have no hesitation in holding that the order passed on 17.10.2018 and as upheld by the order dated 31.10.2020 are not legally substitutable and are accordingly set aside. The amount paid by the petitioner for release of the goods shall be refunded to the petitioner with all expedition preferably within a period of two months from today. 30. With the said observations, the writ petition is allowed. ---------- (2022) 10 ILRA 101 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.10.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. Writ-C No. 6971 of 2022 Lalitesh Pati Tripathi ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Shreya Chaudhary Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., C.S.C. Civil Law - Passport Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc - passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India - However, the Central Government has issued a notification dated 25th August 1993, stating that individuals with pending criminal proceedings, can request an exemption from the passport issuance conditions, before the competent criminal court - They can seek an order from the concerned criminal court allowing them to depart from India (para 3, 4,6) Disposed off . (E-5) List of Cased cited: Prashant Bhushan Vs U.O.I. & anr. Writ Petition(c) 1524 of 2015; (Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. & Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India. 102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. The personal liberty of the petitioner is the subject matter of contest in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.8213 of 2022. The arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged against him under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. has been stayed in the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 7.10.2021. 3. The present writ petition relates to reissuance of the passport, which has already expired on 10.02.2021. The bar as regards issuance of passport or its re-issuance operates by virtue of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 which for ready reference is extracted below :- "6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc. (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:? (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;" 4. The Central Government in the eventuality where the criminal proceedings are pending has issued a notification dated 25th August 1993, according to which, the exemption of any condition as regards issuance of passport may be prayed for before the competent criminal court where the proceedings are pending. The notification dated 25.8.1993 is extracted below:- "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993 G.S.R. 570(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs no. G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) the passport to the issued to every such citizen shall be issued-- (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year, (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of a(ii) and a(iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided 10 All. Satish Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 103 the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified; (c) any passport issued in terms of a(i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued". 5. In the present case, however, personal liberty of the petitioner is the subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid writ petition wherein the arrest of the petitioner has been stayed pending investigation. The issuance of passport is a part and parcel of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to make an application in the pending writ petition and in case any such application is made the same may be dealt with in accordance with law. However, the writ petition cannot be entertained as an independent cause for the relief sought herein particularly when the legality of Section 6(2)(f) remains intact in view of the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(c) 1524 of 2015; Prashant Bhushan versus Union of India and another which we are in agreement with. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the liberty open to the petitioner. ---------- (2022) 10 ILRA 103 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J. THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Writ-C No. 7517 of 2020 Satish ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Sri D.K. Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Anjali Upadhya, Sri A.K. Ray, C.S.C., Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, S.C. A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 6(1), 11(2) & 17 - Acquisition for planned industrial development - Benefit of Additional compensation of 64.70% - Entitlement - Claim prior Gajraj's decision and post Gajraj decision, how far affect entitlement - Held, the benefit of additional compensation to the tune of 64.70% of the awarded compensation besides allotment of 10% Abadi land to the oustees, is confined to landholders who were before the Court in Gajraj and not those who staked their claim post decision in Gajraj - The benefit cannot be extended to the fence-sitters, who now raise claims for additional compensation - Ashok Kumar's case and Savitri Devi's case relied upon. (Para 11 and 14) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1) List of Cases cited:- 1. Gajraj & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB) 2. Savitri Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; (2015) 7 SCC 21