Passport renewal should adhere to the provisions of the Passport Rules, and court-issued guidelines provide clarity on the renewal process.

A.K. Menon, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Union of India and Regional Passport Officer to forthwith extend the validity of the Petitioner's passport by a period of 9 years or 19 years from 26th August, 2014.

3. It appears that in the year 2003, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a criminal case interalia against M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. and the Petitioner. The Petitioner was at the material time the President and Managing Director of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. As a consequence, when the Petitioner's passport which was valid till 9th October, 2013 ran out of usable pages, the Petitioner applied for fresh booklet. However, Respondent no.2 cancelled the existing passport instead of issuing an additional booklet. Thereafter, the Petitioner made an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Mumbai for a direction to the Regional Passport Office to re-issue/renew Passport No.Z1783737. The learned Magistrate by the order dated 23rd May, 2013 passed the following order :

“The Regional Passport Office may consider the Petitioner's prayer for renewal of passport as per prescribed Rules, as this Court has no objection for normal period.”

4. The order directing renewal of the passport as per prescribed Rules appears to have been misinterpreted by Respondent no.2, who issued a new passport valid for one year. The normal period under the relevant Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1960 is 10 years or 20 years. The Petitioner then approached this court by way of Writ Petition No.2786 of 2006 challenging the renewal of passport for limited period of one year. This court disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 13th November, 2006 recording that the Respondents had completely misread the order of the Criminal Court and the passport could not have been cancelled since it was valid till 9th October, 2013. This court directed the Regional Passport Officer to make necessary correction in the passport of the Petitioner within 15 days from the date of order showing the period of validity as of 9th October, 2013.

5. On the same day i.e. 13th November, 2006 an order was passed in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2520 of 2006 filed by Anil Vasantrai Upadhyay, Company Secretary of M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. which also challenged the action of Respondent no.2 in issuing the passport for a period of one year. The Petitioner in that petition had also applied to the Magistrate's Court and on 20th September, 2006 when the following order was passed:

“The Regional Passport Office, Mumbai is directed to renew the Passport of the applicant, as per the terms & conditions of Passport rules.”

6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.

7. In the present case, the Respondents contended that the order of the learned Magistrate did not specify the period for which the passport is issued and in the light of Notification dated 23rd August, 1993 (Annexure “6” to the petition), the passport of the citizen against whom the proceedings are pending in the criminal court in India, shall be issued for a period specified by the court and if no period is specified, the passport shall be renewed for a period of one year. This court held that interpretation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20th September, 2006 is contrary to the express language of the order. When the order speaks about renewal of the passport in terms of the Passport Rules, reference must be made to Rule 12 alone and the Passport Officer was bound to issue the passport either for a period of 10 years or for a period of 20 years as the case may be in his discretion. The Passport Officer could not have at any rate renewed the