Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Harsh Mahesh Tanna – Appellant
Versus
State of Guajrat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 3289 of 2025
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves the renewal of the petitioner’s passport during ongoing legal proceedings, with specific reference to the applicable rules and notifications governing passport renewals (!) (!) .
The relevant notification stipulates that if a court order does not specify a period for passport validity, the passport should be issued for a period of one year, and can be renewed annually unless the court specifies otherwise (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the authority to decide the period of travel permissions lies with the Trial Court, not the passport authorities, and that passport renewals should generally follow the guidelines set forth in the notification unless directed otherwise by the court (!) (!) (!) .
The court notes that when the court does not specify a period for passport validity, the passport should be renewed for one year, but the petitioner’s case involves a pending trial and a direction from the Trial Court to process the renewal as per rules (!) (!) .
The court recognizes that the relevant notification and rules authorize renewal of passports for up to ten years when explicitly directed by a court order, and that passport authorities are bound to follow these guidelines (!) .
The court clarifies that the passport authorities do not have the discretion to decide whether the individual has a right to travel abroad; such permission is a matter for the Trial Court to decide, and the passport should be renewed accordingly (!) (!) .
The final order directs the passport authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport for a period of ten years, with the condition that any travel abroad requires prior permission from the Trial Court, which can impose conditions as deemed appropriate (!) .
The court further orders that any subsequent applications for passport renewal should be decided within four weeks to facilitate the petitioner’s travel needs (!) .
The ruling underscores that the guidelines issued by the court are binding on passport authorities and that the ambiguity in the rules and notifications has been clarified to ensure proper compliance (!) (!) .
If you need assistance drafting a specific legal document or analyzing this case further, please let me know.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondent No.2.
2. The present Special Civil Application seeks a direction to hold the renewal of the passport of the petitioner only for 1 year being violative of his fundamental right and therefore, being illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that under the prevalent rules of the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, the respondent authority has to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. He submits that the trial against the petitioner has been pending since last 6 years and during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner’s passport has expired in the year 2023. The petitioner has, therefore, moved application before the concerned Trial Court. The Trial Court vide its order dated 18.08.2023 has directed the passport authority to renew the passport of the petitioner as per the rules and prevalent notifications. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 renewed the passport of the petitioner only for a period of 1 year from 19.01.2024 to 18.01.2025 in terms of the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. He submits that as the validity of the petitioner’s passport was going to expire on 18.01.2025, the petitioner made another application seeking renewal of the passport. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.11.2024 has directed the Regional Passport Officer to renew the passport as per the rules and notification of the passport authority. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the passport for the period of 10 years, however, the respondent has renewed the passport for a period of 1 year from 10.12.2024 to 09.12.2025. He submits that the petitioner is in business of running car studio and therefore has to travel to various neighboring countries. The petitioner also needs to travel for business expansion and to import goods and material necessary for his business operations. He submits that since the petitioner’s passport is valid only for 1 year, it is restricting his travel abroad as and when required. He, therefore, submits that appropriate direction be passed since the petitioner is well settled in business and has no intention of absconding.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 2014 SCC Online Bom 356 – Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Bombay High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by the passport authorities where the Trial Court has directed that the passport may be renewed as per the rules.
4. Per contra, Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the passport of the petitioner has been renewed from time to time in terms of the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. He submits that where the order of the Trial Court grants permission to travel abroad for a period of less than 1 year but does not specify the period, the passport has to be renewed only for 1 year. He submits that in view of said Notification, the passport authorities have issued the passport as per the rules and the prevalent notifications. He submits that, however, there is no restriction on this Court to issue a direction for issuance of the passport for a certain period of validity as per the rules. He, therefore, submits that appropriate directions be passed accordingly.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.
6. It is not disputed that the FIR under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act came to be registered against the petitioner, charge-sheet came to be filed and a Criminal Case No.199 of 2019 is pending before the Trial Court. By order dated 20.11.20
AI
Passport authorities must renew passports for 10 years if no specific period is mentioned by the Trial Court, as clarified by the Bombay High Court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
