JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J. [Oral]

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue passport to the petitioner.

2. Briefly, the petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 89 dated 12.05.2022 registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga. Owing to the pendency of the case, the petitioner sought permission from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, to apply for a fresh passport.

2.1 The learned Special Court, Moga vide order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) granted permission to the petitioner to apply for fresh passport in view of the circular dated 21.08.2014 issued by Ministry of External Affairs and various judicial pronouncements; with a further observation that the application of the petitioner shall be dealt with as per rules.

3. Pursuant to the trial court's permission, the petitioner duly submitted an application for issuance of a passport on 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). However, the passport was not granted. Initially, the Passport Office issued a file closure notice on 30.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), followed by a request for clarifications on 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) in view of an adverse police verification report. Ultimately, the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, vide the impugned communication dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), directed the petitioner to obtain fresh permission from the trial court explicitly allowing him to 'depart from India' in accordance with Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

4. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Central Government Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned communication issued by the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, vide order dated 19.02.2025, has already granted permission to the petitioner to apply for a fresh passport, however the respondent authorities have not issued the passport on the ground that petitioner has not been granted permission to depart from India. He further submits that the petitioner does not intend to travel abroad at this stage and only seeks issuance of passport, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that he is also willing to keep the passport in safe custody with the trial Court or as directed.

8. Learned Central Government Counsel, while opposing the petition, places reliance on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, asserting that a passport cannot be issued unless specific permission to travel abroad has been granted. It is submitted that, under Section 6(2)(f), the passport authority is empowered to refuse issuance of a passport or travel document to any person against whom criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India. Further, reference is made to Notification GSR-570(E), which provides an exemption from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) in cases where the individual obtains a court order permitting departure from India. The counsel argues that, in accordance with this notification, the petitioner must first obtain explicit permission from the competent court to leave the country, failing which no passport can be issued. In the present case, it is contended that the court orders (Annexure P-1) merely grant permission to apply for passport, without any express permission to travel abroad or depart from India. Therefore, it is asserted that the passport cannot be issued to the petitioner.

9. Heard.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India" reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the