The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Passports Act, 1967, including the right to travel abroad, grounds for refusal of passports, and the exemption for government servants.

M.K. Hanjura, J.

1. Petitioner claims that he possesses the Passport with the date of expiry as 29.06.2016. He sought issuance of the full-term Passport in place of one year. However, the respondents have not come to terms to issue the full term Passport as by the communication bearing No. POSK/P-III/24-16/4966 dated 17th June 2016, they declined to accede to his request. This, according to the petitioner, has forced him to knock at the portals of this Court with the writ petition on hand.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that during the course of the trial, faced by him, in the case FIR No. 14/1991, in the court of the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar, validity of the passport/travel document expired on or around in the month of December, 2004. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for renewal of the passport/travel document. The petitioner also states that the prosecution, being faced by him in case FIR No. 14/1991 is for the alleged acts done in discharge of the official duties, therefore, by reason and by virtue of the Standing Orders issued and notified vide GSR No. 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, the applicability of Clause (f) of Subsection 2 of Section 6 of the Passports Act, has been excluded qua the government servants against whom the criminal charges are pending in any Court in India, for acts done or omitted to be done by them in the discharge of their official duties. It is asserted that consistent with the policy decision of the respondent No. 1 manifested in GSR No. 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, the requisite No objection was obtained from the court of learned Special Judge, Anticorruption, Srinagar, and submitted along with the other requisite documents to the respondent No. 2 for consideration for issuance of the passport/travel document applied for on expiry of the travel document held by the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 2 issued the passport/travel document in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year only with effect from 10.01.2005 to 09.01.2006. On the representation in the matter drawing the focused attention of the respondent No. 2 to the statutory legal provisions, namely, Section 7 of the Passports Act, 1967, read with Rule 12 of the Rules of 1980 and Section 8 of the Act of 1967, the respondent No. 2, dwelling on Section 8 of the Act, extended the validity period of the travel document/passport for the duration for the period commencing from 09.01.2006 to 09.01.2015. Since the trial, being faced by the petitioner was in progress and the passport issued was due to expire on 09.01.2015, he, in order to facilitate the renewal of the passport, approached the court of the learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar, for issuance of No Objection Certificate. On consideration of the application, the petitioner was permitted to get his passport renewed by the court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar, vide order dated 23.12.2014, and as a consequence of which, the respondent No. 2 issued the passport, but, for a period of one year only with expiry date as 29.06.2016. Noticing that the passport has been issued for a shorter period of one year, the petitioner again represented before the respondent No. 2 for issuance/renewal of the passport/travel document according to the legal provisions regulating and governing the field. Conveying declination of the petitioner's request by letter No. POSK/P-III/24-16/4966 dated 17.06.2016, inked by the respondent No. 2, not vouchsafing the extension to the passport adjured for by the petitioner and concomitantly informing him to apply online afresh for issuance thereof, has necessitated him to come up with the instant motion before this Court. The petitioner, on the edifice of the case set up, beseeches declaration of the communication bearing No. POSK/P-III/24-16/4966 dated 17th June 2016, issued by the respondent No. 2, as arbitrary and non-est in law. He also implores a direction to the respondent No. 2 to make and/or