IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the renewal of a passport should be in accordance with the relevant laws and notifications, and the court has the authority to interpret and enforce these provisions to ensure fair treatment.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ petition in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ, order and directions:

(i) The action of the respondent authority in renewing the passport of the petitioner for a validity period of only one year may kindly be declared illegal.

(ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to renew the passport of the petitioner for a 10 year validity period as prescribed under the Rules of 1980.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and

(iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the passport was issued to the petitioner bearing passport No.J8161277 having validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2021. The petitioner, being in Police Department, was promoted on the post of Inspector and in the year 2019, a Criminal case was registered against the petitioner by Anti Corruption Bureau through FIR No.289/2019 dated 27.09.2019, as a consequence of which, the petitioner was suspended and the petitioner was thereafter compulsorily retired from the service.

3. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur filed a charge-sheet and thereafter, a criminal case No.254/2019 was registered against the petitioner and the same is pending adjudication before the learned Special Court, Anti Corruption Bureau–1, Jaipur Metropolitan No.2. The petitioner thereafter, started pursuing his family business of export of stones for which he had to undertake frequent travels to foreign countries and accordingly, the validity of the petitioner's passport was extended by the respondent but only for a period of one year. The petitioner has also been doing the business of export and import of granite stones for which a certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner dated 10.04.2023. The petitioner’s original passport expired on 30.06.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner preferred the application before the Special Court ACB – 1 seeking permission to travel abroad as well as the direction to the respondent for renewal of his passport. Learned trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.5) allowed the petitioner’s application and directed the respondent to renew his passport in accordance with law.

4. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent for renewal of his passport and the petitioner was granted renewal with a validity of only one year i.e. from 23.09.2022 to 22.09.2023. Though, the passport of the petitioner was renewed after 23.09.2022 but on account of the requirement of minimum six months validity period of passport for visa purposes in certain countries, where the petitioner’s business is situated and as such, the petitioner can exercise the passport only for the initial six months and for remaining six months it will be of no use.

5. For further renewal of his passport, the petitioner preferred the Misc. Application No.115/2023 before the learned court praying for passing of a specific order for issuance of the passport having validity period of 10 years.

6. Learned trial court vide its order dated 29.04.2023 (Annex.8) again ordered the respondent for renewal of the petitioner’s passport No.W4445712 in accordance with law.

7. The petitioner again submitted an application dated 09.05.2023 to the respondent requesting them to issue the passport, as prescribed under the Passport Rules, 1980 (‘Rules of 1980’), for a period of 10 years. It was orally informed to the petitioner, that he would be issued the passport having validity period of only one year and, therefore, the petitioner did not pursue the application dated 09.05.2023.

8. The respondent verbally stated that learned trial court has nowhere directed for considering the