JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner – Ashok Kumar Gupta has filed the present petition seeking directions to the Respondent No.2 – Regional Passport Office, New Delhi to renew his passport for a period of ten years in accordance with law.

3. Mr. Barua, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had moved a specific application seeking permission and clarification from the ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District/ Saket Courts (hereinafter, “ld. CMM”) that his passport be renewed for ten years. The ld. CMM vide order dated 2nd December, 2022 merely directed that the Petitioner’s passport be renewed as per rules and in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“File taken up on an application moved on behalf of the applicants/accused namely Ramdhari Gupta and Ashok Kumar seeking modification/clarifications of the order dated 03.08.2022. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that an application for renewal of the passport was moved on behalf of the applicants/accused persons seeking renewal of passport for a period of 10 years which was disposed of on 03.08.2022.

heard. Record perused.

As per order dated 03.08.2022, this Court had given its no objection qua application of the accused for renewal of the passport. In the said order, it was stated that the Court had no objection if the accused applies for passport. The said order is modified to the extent that this Court has no objection if the passport of the applicant/accused is renewed as per rules and in accordance with law.

The application stands disposed of as allowed.

Copy of this order be given dasti.”

4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra K. Ambwani vs. Union of India and Ors. (2014(4) Bom CR 281) to argue that if the ld. Magistrate passes an order that the renewal ought to be as per Rules, then the renewal ought to be for a period of ten years.

5. The ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that this matter would be covered by the recent decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) 15664/2022 titled Kunal Minda v. Union of India and Ors. (decided on 19th December, 2022) and W.P.(C) 11782/2022 titled Arun Kumar Gupta @ Arun Ramavtar Guupta v. Union of India (decided on 20th December, 2022). He submits that unless and until specific orders mentioning the period for which the passport is to be renewed, is given by the concerned Magistrates, the renewal of the passport is made only for a period of one year.

6. It is noticed by this Court that repeatedly several matters are filed before the Court, for renewal of passports for ten years. The legal position in this as laid down by this Court in Deepak Jain v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 10680/2018 is that the ld. Magistrate would have to expressly indicate the period for which the passport ought to be issued/renewed. If the said indication is not provided in the order passed by the ld. Magistrate, then the passport would be liable to be renewed only for a period of one year.

7. Recently, this Court had the occasion to consider similar matters in Kunal Minda (supra) and Arun Kumar Gupta (supra) wherein the Court observed as under:

“Kunal Minda v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 15664/2022

6. The matter has been heard. A perusal of the judgement in Deepak Jain (supra) shows that the ld. Single Judge of this Court has already taken a view in the matter after considering the judgement in Narender K. Ambwani (supra) as also the decision in Prashant Bhushan (supra). After considering the said decisions as also the notification dated 25th August, 1993 passed by the Government of India, the Court came to the following conclusion:

“10. It is apparent from the language of the notification dated 25.08.1993 – which is not under challenge in these proceedings – that if no period for issue of the passport or approval is specified, the passport would be issued for a p