G. ROHINI, J.

1. The petitioner was issued a passport on 03.05.2006 under the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) valid for a period of ten years.

2. The petitioner made an application on 26.06.2014 for re-issuance of the passport since leaves in his passport booklet had exhausted. In the said application the petitioner had mentioned the details of the cases that were registered against him for the alleged violation of Section 144 of Cr. PC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 which are pending in Patiala House Court namely FIR No. 71 of 2012 and 72 of 2012 on the file of PS Tughlak Road and FIR No. 130 of 2012 on the file of PS Parliament Street. The petitioner was informed that in view of the pendency of the criminal cases, it is necessary for him to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court where the criminal cases are pending. Accordingly the petitioner moved the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts, seeking NOC for reissuance of his passport. By order dated 02.09.2014, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi issued NOC for renewal as per Rules. However, the Respondent No. 2/Passport Officer, by order dated 15.09.2014, issued the passport with validity for a period of one year only stating that the petitioner is eligible for a short validity passport in terms of the Notification dated 25.08.1993 and that the request of the petitioner for re-issue of the passport for full validity cannot be acceded to unless the court issues a fresh order in that regard.

3. Aggrieved by the same, this petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the Notification dated 25.08.1993 is unconstitutional and void and that the petitioner is entitled to re-issuance of passport for full validity of ten years. Subsequently, the writ petition has been amended seeking an additional prayer to quash Section 6(2)(f) of the Act on the ground that it is violative of Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

5. Section 6(2) of the Act provides that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under Section 5(2)(c) on any one or more of the grounds specified therein. One of the grounds specified under Section 6(2) is pendency of proceedings before a criminal court in India in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant. Section 6(2) of the Act, to the extent it is relevant for the present case, reads as under:

6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(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:-

xxx xxx xxx

(f) That proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.

6. As could be seen, the statute mandates that a passport shall be refused in case of pendency of proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant before a criminal court. However, Section 22 of the Act enables the Central Government to exempt by notification in the official gazette any person or class of persons from the operation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. In exercise of the power so conferred, the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs issued the Notification dated 25.08.1993 exempting citizens of India, against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act subject to con