IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :03.12.2025 Rakesh Kanwar … Appellant Versus Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Matharoo, & Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent-UOI. (joined through V.C. keeping in view advance copy served).

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-20648- 2024 by which, the duration for which the passport of the appellant should be renewed has been prescribed as 03 years.

2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant was entitled for the grant of renewal of his passport for a period of 10 years, which claim of the appellant has not been allowed even though, his said claim is squarely covered by the Instructions dated 25.08.1993 (Annexure P/10) issued by the Government of India, which instructions have been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in 2016 SCC Online Bom.

14539 titled as Samip Nitin Ranjani vs. Union of India and others.

3. Certain facts need to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

4. Appellant herein has been facing trial before CBI Court during the pendency of which period his passport expired and in order to get his passport renewed, the appellant approached the CBI Court praying for permission to get his passport renewed. The application for grant of said permission was filed by the appellant on 11.03.2024 and acting upon said application, order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P/3) was passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court. The operative part of the said order is as under:-

“As a result, there is merit in the application of the present applicant/accused, and he is granted permission to get his passport renewed, which has expired on 12.03.2024. The application as filed, is allowed accordingly.”

5. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that though the permission was granted by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI Court’) to get the passport of the appellant renewed but no such period for which the same was to be renewed was mentioned by the CBI Court. Keeping in view the said order, a clarification was sought by the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh vide letter dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P/5) and while reverting to the said letter, a finding was recorded by CBI Court vide letter/order dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure P/6) that no clarification of the order dated 21.03.2024 is needed. Aggrieved against the said order, CRM-M-36022-2024 was filed by the appellant, which criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure P/6) and a liberty was granted to the respondent-Passport authorities to move an appropriate application under the provisions of law before the learned CBI Court so as to seek clarification. Thereafter, the respondent-authority informed the appellant vide letter dated 13.08.2024 (Anenxure P/9) that his passport was being renewed for a period of one year only as the order dated 21.03.2024 was silent on this aspect.

6. It transpires that as the benefit sought by appellant was not being given to him, an application was moved by the appellant for modification of the order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court but, in the said application seeking modification of the said order, the CBI Court vide order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) held that as in the order dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure P/3), no time period for which the passport was to be renewed was mentioned, coupled with perusal of Clause (ii) of the Notification dated 25.08.1993 (Annexure P/10) issued b