SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 17427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
Chaitanyakumar Shambhubhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Regional Passport Office – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5370 of 2026 | C/SCA/5370/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NL Ramnani, A. N. Ramnani
For the Respondents: Pradip D Bhate

Passport authorities cannot limit the validity of a passport to one year solely due to pending criminal proceedings under GSR Notification 570(E); passports should be issued for the standard period (10 years), as the power to restrict travel resides with the Trial Court.

Headnote:(A) Passport Issuance - Pending Criminal Proceedings - Validity Period - Where a criminal case is pending, the passport authority cannot arbitrarily limit the validity of the passport to one year based on GSR Notification 570(E) if the general rules allow for a longer period, as the authority to restrict travel rests with the Trial Court. (Para 12)

(B) Administrative Discretion - Passport Authorities - Scope of Power - Passport authorities lack the jurisdiction to decide whether an accused has a right to travel abroad; such power is vested exclusively in the Trial Court, which may impose conditions on travel. (Para 12)

Issues: Whether the respondent authority is bound to issue a passport for a period of 10 years despite pending criminal proceedings when the Trial Court has not specified a validity period.

JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Standing Counsel 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.

3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1976 seeking direction to the respondent authority to issue a fresh passport, in connection with petitioner’s application bearing No. (ARN) 25-0006021840 and given File No. AH306988527816, in favour of the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - authority.

5. Learned counsel 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 petitioner has lost his passport while going to meet his friend on 13.03.2025, the petitioner had applied for a fresh passport for the period of 10 years, however, the respondent has not issued the passport on the ground that one criminal case is pending against the petitioner and he is yet not charge sheeted in the offences. He has submitted that the petitioner has also intimated about loss of passport to the concerned police station i.e. Anand Town Police Station on 16.03.2025 and the complaint was registered as II-AP No. 555/2025 dated 18.03.2025. He has submitted that the petitioner has to travel to abroad frequently as he is in business of providing immigration related services but, due to non-issuance 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 counsel 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 been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely :-

(a) the passport to be issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top