Anupam Mahalanabish vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Cx , Kol North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned rejection letter dated 25th November 2022 was unsustainable. The reason cited for rejection, the pendency of two criminal proceedings, was rendered irrelevant by specific orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. The Court noted that an order dated 5th January 2021 had established the petitioner's right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution. Crucially, subsequent orders dated 30th November 2022 in the criminal proceedings explicitly permitted the petitioner to travel abroad for the specified period and directed the renewal of his passport for this purpose. The Court found no existing embargo on the petitioner's travel for personal reasons. The respondents' reliance on the Office Memorandum of 27th July 2015 did not assist their case, as the specific reason for rejection was negated by judicial pronouncements. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to sanction the petitioner's earned leave application for the revised travel dates (12.12.2022-23.12.2022) and not interfere with his travel plans.

Facts

The petitioner, Anupam Mahalanabish, sought to quash a letter dated 25th November 2022 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (P&E), Kolkata North Commissionerate. This letter rejected the petitioner's application for private travel outside India with his family, initially planned for 11th December 2022 to 18th December 2022. Due to the passage of the original travel dates, the petitioner filed a subsequent application (CAN 1 of 2022) for leave from 12th December 2022 to 23rd December 2022, and to quash the rejection order. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate and others, contended that the writ petition's nature had changed. The rejection was based on two pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, referencing an Office Memorandum dated 27th July 2015.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned letter dated 25th November 2022, rejecting the petitioner's application for private travel abroad, is sustainable in law, considering the pendency of criminal proceedings against him? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the reason for rejection, namely the pendency of criminal proceedings, was irrelevant as specific orders from competent courts had already permitted his foreign travel. He relied on orders from the Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, dated 5th January 2021, 30th November 2022, and a similar order in another criminal proceeding (BGR-3479 of 2015), which explicitly allowed his travel and directed passport renewal for this purpose. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition's nature had changed due to the subsequent application (CAN 1 of 2022) with revised dates. They also relied on an Office Memorandum dated 27th July 2015, which permits denial of leave for private visits abroad in the interest of security and pending investigation/enquiry.