The period for which a passport can be renewed must be specified by the concerned trial court, upon an application filed by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner - Mr. Voola Joshua Paul has approached this court seeking re-issuance of his passport for a period of ten years from the date of issuance. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Passport Office has been renewing the passport only for a period of one year, contrary to the Rules.

3. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Trial Court, having issued an order directing the Passport Authorities in terms of the Rules, the Passport is liable to be issued for a period of ten years in terms of Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.

4. Ms. Nidhi Raman, ld. CGSC appearing for the passport authorities submits that in terms of the previous settled legal position as also the recent orders passed by this court in WP(C) 15664/2022 titled 'Kunal Minda v. Union of India & Anr.' and other connected matters, if the Trial Court gives a specific order mentioning the period for which the passport is to be issued, the same shall be adhered to by the passport authorities.

5. Heard. Admittedly, an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner being FIR No.0285/2020 dated 30th November, 2020, PS- IGI Airport. In connected proceedings emanating from the said FIR being bail application no. 2974/2020 titled 'State v. Voola Joshua Paul,' the Petitioner has been released on bail. The Petitioner has thereafter applied for re-issuance of the passport.

6. In the criminal case arising of the FIR, charges have been framed and trial is underway. In SC No. 236/2021 titled 'State v. Voola Joshua Paul' vide order dated, 24th September 2022, the ld. ASJ directed as under -

"This is the application for no objection of the court regarding re-issuance of passport in favour of the applicant/ accused.

Reply is received as filed by the IO through email and the copy of the same is given to the ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant.

Arguments heard and record perused.

The present case is pending for prosecution evidence and charge has been framed for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376/420 IPC. As per reply filed by the IO, he has no objection in the re- issuance of regular passport of the accused. Before addressing the arguments on the application, Ld. Counsel submits that he is not pressing his prayer clause (b) of the application.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that during the arguments on the bail application, the prosecutrix gave her no objection on the release of the accused no bail as she did not want any proceeding against him.

Furthermore, the matter is pending for prosecution evidence and the trial will take long time and there is no condition to restrict the movement of the accused outside India in the bail order.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the report filed by the IO, this court has no objection in the re- issuance of the regular passport of the applicant/accused, if he is otherwise eligible as per law/rules.

Here it is clarified that the no objection given by the court shall not be considered as a direction for the issuance of the passport in favour of the accused and the concerned authorities will consider the application of the accused independently as per rules. Copy of the order be given dasti to the applicant/accused."

7. A perusal of the above order shows that the court has given no objection for renewal of passport but the same is to be considered independently as per the Rules. Accordingly, the Petitioner has been issued a passport for a period of one year by the Passport Authorities. The prayer in this writ petition is as under:

"a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction to the Respondent No. 1 & 3 to Re-Issue the Petitioner's Passport bearing No. V3769994 for a Period of 10 Years from the date of Issuance; and/or

b. Pass any other or further Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper "

8. The Court has considered the following orders which have bee