SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 21

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J
GAUTAM LAKHMANBHAI KARETHA – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE AHMEDABAD – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2672 of 2025



Petitioner Advocates:MR. MAYUR S BHATTI(17455) ,Respondent Advocate:

The Passport Authority must issue a passport to individuals with pending criminal cases if permitted by the court, as per the 1993 notification.

Headnote:

(A) Passport Act, 1967 - Section 6 - Notification dated 25.08.1993 - Denial of passport issuance due to pending criminal proceedings - The Passport Authority must adhere to the provisions outlined in the notification, which exempts citizens with pending criminal cases from certain restrictions, provided they have court permission. (Paras 4-5)

(B) Public interest - The notification serves to balance individual rights and public interest by allowing citizens facing criminal proceedings to travel abroad under specific conditions. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought issuance of a passport which was denied due to ongoing criminal proceedings against him. The respondent authority based its decision on the notification dated 25.08.1993.

Findings of Court:
The Passport Authority is directed to process the application for a passport with a validity of five years in accordance with the notification.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be issued a passport despite pending criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to the notification, stating that the Passport Authority must consider the public interest while processing applications for passports of individuals with pending criminal cases.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the Passport Authority.

ORDER :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is submitted that due to pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the respondent authority has denied to issue the passport to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Pradip Bhate, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Passport Authority submits that the case of the petitioner will be governed by the notification/circular dated

25.08.1993 and the application would be decided accordingly.

4. In view of the pendency of the case, it is pertinent to take note of the notification/circular dated 25.8.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, providing that in the interest of public at large, the citizens, be exempted, against whom the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before the Criminal Court. The relevant extracts of the notification dated 25.8.1993, read as under:

"In exercise of the process conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R 298 (E) dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued –

(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or

(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.

(b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewal for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that in the meantime the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;

(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period of travel abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuisng authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance to force of the passport so issued."

5. In view of the above, the respondent Passport Authority is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport with a validity period of five years in terms of the notification/circular dated 25.8.1993.

6. Needless to say that the exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Direct service is permitted. 

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top