JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for hearing.

3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Passport Act seeking the following reliefs:-

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, direction and/or order to respondent authority to renew / reissue the passport of the petitioner bearing No.M 7484964 for a period of 10 years in the interest of justice;

(C) Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to renew / reissue the passport of the petitioner bearing No. L 7484964 in the interest of justice.

(D) Any such other and/or further orders that may be though just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard Mr.Jignesh Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pradip Bhate, learned counsel Standing Counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr.Jignesh Nayak, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that under the prevalent rules of the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, the respondent authority has to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. He submits that the trial against the petitioner has been pending since last 7 years and during the pendency of the trial, the petitioners passport has expired in the year 2025. He has submitted that as the validity of the petitioner’s passport was expired on 23.03.2025, the petitioner had applied for renewal of the passport for the period of 10 years, however, the respondent has not renewed the passport on the ground that the criminal case is pending and he is yet not charge sheeted in the offences. He has submitted that the petitioner has to travel to abroad but due to non-renewal of the passport, he is not able to visit. He has, therefore, submitted that appropriate direction be passed since the petitioner is well settled and has no intention of absconding.

5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in 2014 SCC Online Bom 356 Narendra K. Ambwani Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Bombay High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by the passport authorities where the Trial Court has directed that the passport may be renewed as per the rules.

6. Per contra, Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the passport of the petitioner has been renewed from time to time in terms of the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. He submits that where the order of the Trial Court grants permission to travel abroad for a period of less than 1 year but does not specify the period, the passport has to be renewed only for 1 year. He submits that in view of said Notification, the passport authorities have issued 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. Considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

8. The GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 reads as under:-

G.S.R 570 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of the Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offences alleged to have be