IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2522 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

VINAYGIRI KALUGIRI GOSWAMI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of The Passport Act seeking following reliefs:

“A. Admit this application;

B. Allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent no.2 passport authorities to issue new passport to the present petitioner in the interest of justice. C. Grant such other and further relief(s) in the fact and circumstances of the present petition as deemed fit in the interest of justice;”

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the an FIR being No. 11206038230223/2023 was registered at Langhnaj Police Station against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4378/2023, wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2025 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC. Against this, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 504/2025, wherein the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2025 partly allowed the appeal and extended the benefit of probation to the petitioner. That, the petitioner had applied for a new passport by way of online application on the website of the respondent no.2 authority. That, the respondent no.2 authority has not issued a new passport to the present petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case/proceeding and refused to issue new passport, without the order of the concerned Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

Perused the materials available on record.

5. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that passport authority has erred in not considering the fact that pendency of criminal proceeding is no ground to refuse passport and moreover, no case or appeal is pending against the petitioner. He has submitted that a false case has been filed against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was convicted and appeal filed against the conviction order is disposed of by giving benefit u/s 4 of the Probation of Offender Act and hence, no case is pending against the petitioner. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Chaudhari has urged that the present petition is required to be allowed.

6. Mr. Bhate, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the passport authorities will issue the passport as per the rules and the prevalent notifications. He submits that, however, there is no restriction on this Court to issue a direction for issuance of the passport for a certain period of validity as per the rules. He therefore, submits that appropriate directions be passed accordingly.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have considered the facts of the petition. It is not disputed that the FIR has been filed against the present petitioner which was registered under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Pena