JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition has been made by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in criminal case bearing No. NACT/13907/2022 titled as Genestore India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd & Ors., filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby an application moved by the petitioner for giving direction to the passport authority to renew the passport of the petitioner had been dismissed.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application before the trial Magistrate seeking declaration for renewal of his passport in terms of notification dated 25.08.1993, published by the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India. The trial Magistrate, vide order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-7), had allowed the said application, thereby granting permission for renewal/restoration of the passport of the petitioner and also clarifying that it had no objection if the passport authorities renewed the passport of the petitioner. The petitioner then approached the respondent No. 1 for renewal of his passport, which was renewed but only for a period of one year. The reason given in this regard was that the renewal period was restricted to a period of one year or such other time as specified by the trial Court in view of notification dated 25.08.1993. It is submitted by the petitioner that he again approached the trial Magistrate by moving an application for passing a specific order, thereby giving no objection if the passport of the petitioner was issued for full term i.e. for a period of ten years as per applicable laws. This application was dismissed by the trial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 05.09.2023. Feeling dissatisfied, the present petition has been filed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside as while passing the same, the trial Court ignored the legal mandate of Clause (a)(i) of notification dated 25.08.1993, which authorizes the Court to specify the period of renewal, failing which, the authorities would be constrained to renew the passport only for a period of one year. It is submitted that the petitioner has to frequently travel abroad as he is one of the directors of a company, which is indulged in the business of manufacturing of competitive and high quality medical and electronic devices in India and is exporting its product to Europe and South East Asia. The petitioner is required to meet prospective clients of his company living abroad as the same is quintessential part of his work profile. It is further submitted that as per Passport Rules, 1980, any ordinary passport has to be in force for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance and in case of any criminal litigation pending against the passport holder, his passport has to be renewed for the period to be specified/allowed by the trial Court. It is argued that while passing the impugned order, the trial Court did not take all these facts into consideration and also ignored that it was the right of the petitioner to travel abroad and by not granting permission to get his passport renewed for a period of ten years, the petitioner was going to be made to suffer by facing ordeal of moving applications for renewal of his passport after every one year. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the authorities cited as Narendra K. Ambwani vs. Union of India : (2014) SCC Online Bom 356, Hardik Shah vs. Union of India and another : 2021 SCC Online MP 2326, Ashok Muthana vs. Regional Passport Officer Chennai : 2017 SCC Online Mad 2213, Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam : (1967) 2 SCR 525 and Roshan Lawrence Menezes vs. Union of India : Writ