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

2026 Supreme(Guj) 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Sarojben Rameshbhai Panchal - Petitioner 
Versus 
The Regional Passport Officer, Gujarat State , Ahmedabad – Respondent 
R/Special Civil Application No. 1570 of 2026
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr A.R. Thacker
For the Respondent: Shivang A Thacker, Mr Pradip D. Bhate.

The passport authorities must renew passports for a period of 10 years, while travel permissions during pending criminal proceedings must be obtained from the Trial Court.

Headnote:(A) Passports Act, 1967 - GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 - Petitioner requested issuance of a fresh passport for 10 years, facing criminal charges, with pending trial - Passport authority required court orders for clearance prior to issuance - Court found ambiguity in the provisions affecting authority over travel permissions - Directions established that passport authorities must renew passports for a period of 10 years, with permissions handled by the Trial Court. (Paras 4, 9, 10)

(B) Judicial Authority - Court clarified that authority to decide travel permissions lies solely with the Trial Court and not with the passport authorities. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced vague allegations under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, resulting in an FIR after a significant delay, with ongoing investigations and no trial commenced. Despite these circumstances, the petitioner wished to obtain a passport to visit a daughter abroad.

Findings of Court:
The court directed issuance of the passport for 10 years, specifying that travel permissions must be secured from the Trial Court, reinforcing that the passport authority lacks jurisdiction over such permissions.

Issues: The primary issue revolved around the authority of the passport authorities in light of pending criminal proceedings and the applicability of the GSR Notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the passport authorities must comply with the GSR Notification and established precedent guiding them to renew passports as per the legal framework while maintaining that travel permissions reside with the Trial Court.

Result: Special Civil Application allowed; passport issued for 10 years, subject to Trial Court permissions.

Table of Content
1. petition for fresh passport issuance (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. applicable gsr notification provisions (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's observations on passport renewal (Para 8 , 9)
4. passports to be issued for 10 years (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate waives service of rule for the respondent.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to issue fresh passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years.

3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that an FIR being C.R.No.I- 11191028201628 of 2020 came to be filed in the Vejalpur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 498 & 144 IPC read with Section 3 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner by daughter-in-law of petitioner on 03.09.2020 making totally vague allegations and for the alleged incident occurred on 27.10.2019, after 11 months the FIR came to be filed. It is submitted that it was peak Covid-19 period, therefore, as per prevailing practice, the police had arrested all the accused and released them on bail as per directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court immediately. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the police has filed charge sheet being Charge-sheet No. 184 of 2020 on 16.10.2020. It is further submitted that the trial has not yet commenced and even the charge is not framed. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s one daughter is residing at U.S.A and the petitioner wants to visit U.S.A. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for getting new passport. However, the respondent- Passport Authority has raised objection and called upon the petitioner to produce the proof of clearance of the case.

4. Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the passport application of the petitioner is to be processed in accordance with the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. He submits that the citizens who are facing criminal proceedings have to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India. He, therefore, submits that the communication dated 05.07.2023 has been issued in accordance with the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the documents on record and considered the submissions.

6. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the FIR being C.R.No.I- 11191028201628 of 2020 came to be filed in the Vejalpur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 498 & 144 IPC read with Section 3 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner by daughter-in-law of petitioner on 03.09.2020 for the alleged incident occurred on 27.10.2019. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the police has filed charge sheet being Charge-sheet No. 184 of 2020 on 16.10.2020. The trial has not yet commenced and even the charge is not framed.

7. The GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 reads as under:-

“G.S.R 570 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of the Section 22 of the Passports 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 offences 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

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