Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, to the petitioner.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for directing the respondent-Passport Authority to renew the petitioner’s passport for the standard period of ten years, in accordance with the order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned trial Court.

2. Briefly, the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession, is one of the accused in a case pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, under Sections 420, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 66, 66-C, 66-D and 43 of the Information Technology Act. His revision petition seeking discharge in the said case is pending before this Court in Criminal Revision No.259 of 2021, wherein interim protection from personal appearance before the trial Court was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have undertaken professional trips to Canada after obtaining due permission from the trial Court.

2.1 Meanwhile, the petitioner’s passport had expired, whereupon he moved an application (Annexure P-2) before the learned Trial Court seeking permission to renew it for a regular period of ten years. The learned Special Judge, CBI Court, allowed the request of the petitioner vide order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P-3). Acting upon that order, the petitioner applied to the respondent authority on 15.05.2024 for renewal of his passport, enclosing a copy of the court’s order. However, the respondent, instead of processing the renewal, addressed a letter dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P-5)

authenticity of this to the Trial Court seeking clarification as to whether the permission granted

on 21.03.2024 should be construed as approval for a ten-year validity. The Trial Court, on its administrative side, vide communication dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure P-6), stated that since the judicial order did not specify any period, the passport may be renewed only for one year in accordance with Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

2.2 The said administrative communication dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) was later quashed by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed in CRM-M No.36022 of 2024, with liberty to the respondent to move the trial Court on the judicial side for appropriate clarification.

2.3 Thereafter, the respondent-Passport Authority renewed the passport of the petitioner only for one year vide letter dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure P-9). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking relief as noticed above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 21.03.2024 of the learned Special Judge had, in substance, allowed renewal of passport for the regular ten-year period sought in the application, and that the respondent was not competent to restrict its validity to one year. It is submitted that the order of the trial Court was clear and unconditional and, therefore, the renewal ought to have been for ten years. Counsel further relies upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, including “Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI”, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549, and “Mr. Samip Nitin Ranjani vs. Union of India and ors.” 2020 (3) AIR Bom. R459. It is argued that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental right to travel abroad recognized in “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India”, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter is squarely covered by clause (a)(ii) of the Government Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, which mandates that where no period for issue or travel is specified in the Court’s order, the passport shall be issued for one year only. It is urged that the order dated 21.03.2024 of the learned Special Judge did not stipulate an