Passport authorities must renew passports for the standard period (10 years) when the Trial Court permits renewal "as per rules," as the authority to restrict travel or impose conditions rests solely with the Trial Court, not the passport office.

JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Pradip Bhate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

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

3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 seeking following reliefs :

“a. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this application;

b. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 22.11.2025 at Annexure ‘C’, refusing to renew passport, in the interest of justice;

c. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent authority to renew petitioner passport within validity period, in the interest of justice;

d. Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may deem fit proper, in the interest of justice.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents - authorities.

5. 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 has submitted that as the validity of the petitioner’s passport has expired, 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 investigation itself is stayed and filing of charge sheet is prohibited by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 11931 of 2022 filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR. He has, therefore, submitted that appropriate directions 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 p