MOHAMEDIQBAL GANIBHAI MEGHREJI vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 14904 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MOHAMEDIQBAL GANIBHAI MEGHREJI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH J PATEL(11240) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JHIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 30/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned petition is preferred under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226
& 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023,
thereby challenging the order dated 29.09.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural)
in CBI Crl. Misc. Application No.31 of 2026 in CBI Criminal Case No. 18
of 2024, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner herein
came to be partly allowed and petitioner was permitted to get renewed
his passport for a period of three years in terms of notification/circular
of Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.08.1993.
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
2. By way of preferring the instant petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the
present application;
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2026 passed
by the Ld. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No. 1,
Ahmedabad (Rural) below CBI Criminal Misc. Application No. 31
of 2026 in CBI Criminal Case No. 18 of 2024, to the extent that
it confines the no-objection for renewal and re-issue of the
passport of the applicant bearing No. Z4139752 to a period of
three years, and be pleased to direct that the said passport be
renewed and re-issued for the full period of ten years, the said
period being specified for the purposes of clause (a)(i) of
Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993; [ANNEXURE –
A];
c) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the respondent no. 3 to re-issue an ordinary passport
to the applicant for the normal period of ten years from the date
of issue, subject to compliance with the usual procedural
requirements, within such period as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit from the date of the application of the applicant;
d) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside
Condition No. 1 imposed by the impugned order, and be pleased
to permit the applicant to depart from India during the validity of
the passport, subject to his undertaking under clause (d) of
Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) to appear before the trial court
whenever required; [ANNEXURE – A];
e) In the alternative to prayer clause (D), YOUR LORDSHIPS
may be pleased to modify Condition No. 1 imposed by the
impugned order so as to require the applicant to intimate the
trial court and the respondent no. 1 in writing, at least 7 (seven)
days before each departure from India, of his itinerary, his
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
address abroad and the date of his return, in place of seeking
prior permission, on such further terms as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit;
f) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
present application, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct
the respondent no. 3 to accept and process the application of
the applicant for re-issue of his passport for a period of ten
years, subject to the final outcome of the present application;
g) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
3. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned
advocate, Mr. Kodekar accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.1. Learned APP, accepts and waives service of Rule on
behalf of respondent No.2. Learned advocate, Mr. Pankaj M Luhar
appearing on behalf of Learned advocate, Mr. Pradip D Bhate accepts
and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the passport
bearing No.Z4139752 is going to expire on 30.05.2027, as such, the
petitioner preferred an application before the learned CBI Court,
seeking permission to get the passport renewed for a period of ten
years. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has partly allowed the
said application and thereby permitted the petitioner herein to get the
passport renewed for a period of three years. He submitted that the
petitioner as on today is aged about 67 years and has to go abroad for
business purposes and further, all his children are settled outside India,
i.e., at UK, Dubai & Canada. Therefore, he is required to travel abroad
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
frequently. As such, he prayed that his passport ought to have been
permitted to be renewed for a period of ten years. Therefore, he prayed
for modification of the modification of the impugned order and
submitted that he may be permitted to get his passport renewed for a
period of ten years. In support of his contentions, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Harsh Mahesh Tanna v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
R/Special Civil Application No.3289 of 2025, decided on
17.03.2025, whereby the Coordinate Bench had permitted the
petitioner therein to get his passport renewed for a period of ten years
as per the applicable notification/Rules. Reliance has also been placed
on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. [2025 INSC
1476]. Having placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned
counsel for the Petitioner prayed for modification of the impugned
order.
6. Per contra, Mr. Kodekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 submitted that he has no objections if the passport is renewed for
a limited period of three years. He further submitted that appropriate
conditions may be imposed upon the petitioner such as intimating and
seeking prior permission from the Trial Court before leaving India for
future visits to abroad.
7. Learned APP appearing for respondent No.2 adopted the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 –
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
Regional Passport Officer, Ahmedabad, vehemently argued that the
instant petition is premature. He argued that the petitioner has not
preferred any application before respondent No.3 for renewing his
passport. He further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Delhi High Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Rajgopal
Chakravarthi Venkateish [2026:DHC:4546-DB]. Having placed
reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 prayed for rejection of the captioned petition.
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties and having gone through the records, it emerges from the
records that the petitioner has arrayed as an accused in connection with
CBI Criminal Case No. 18 of 2024. The FIR was registered at CBI, BS &
FB, Mumbai Police Station for the offenses punishable under Section
120-B read with Sections 420, 468 & 471 of IPC. The trial of the said
case is pending and progressing before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural). The petitioner
had preferred an application being CBI Crl. Misc. Application No.31 of
2026 seeking permission to get renewed his passport bearing No.
Z4139752 for a period of 10 years. Vide its order dated 29.09.2026, the
learned Trial Court partly allowed the said application, thereby
permitting the petitioner to get renewed/reissued the said passport for
a period of three years. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the
learned Trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to get
renewed his passport for a period of ten years.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has no
objections if the passport is renewed for the limited period of three
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
years, while learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposed
this application. He raised the contention that the petition is premature,
as no application has been preferred before the Regional Passport
Office for renewal of the passport. Insofar as the objection raised by the
learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the instant petition that the
premature is concerned, petitioner could make application for renewal
only after getting permission from the Court. The learned Trial Court
has granted permission for renewal for a limited period of three years.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, has approached this
Court. Thus, the cause for making an application before the respondent
No.3 – Regional Passport Office would arise only when petitioner gets
necessary permission from the Court, and thereafter, application before
respondent No.3 would be made.
11. Before proceedings further, it would be apposite to refer to the
judgments relied upon the parties in support of their contentions. The
petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Harsh Mahesh Tanna (supra),
wherein at para No.10, the Coordinate Bench has observed as under:-
“10. Though the said decision is not binding on this
Court, it has certainly a persuasive value. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the ratio of the said
judgment squarely applies in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. In case of the petitioner herein, the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand has clearly
directed that the application for renewal of the passport of
the petitioner should be processed as per the Act and
Rules framed thereunder. It is not disputed that the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand has not given
any direction as to the period for which the passport of
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
the petitioner should be renewed. The Central
Government has issued a Notification by exercising powers
vested in it under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act,
1967 being GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.
There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act,
the Rules and the GSR Notification 570(E) dated
25.08.1993 issued by the passport authority, the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court has clarified the said
ambiguity in case of Narendra K. Ambwani (supra). This
Court is also of the considered opinion that the passport
authorities do not have any authority to decide whether
the accused has a right to travel abroad and such
authority is only vested in the Trial Court which can
impose conditions if an application is made seeking
permission to travel abroad. This Court is of the
considered opinion that the directions issued by the
Bombay High Court are binding upon the passport
authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years
as per the Act and the Rules.”
12. Petitioner had also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra),
wherein at paragraph No.30, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as
under:-
“30. The respondents are directed to re-issue an
ordinary passport to the appellant for the normal period
of ten years from the date of issue, subject to compliance
with the usual procedural requirements, within a period
of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of
this judgment before the RPO, Kolkata. The passport so
issued shall remain subject to all existing and future
orders passed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi
High Court, including, in particular, the conditions that the
appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
the court concerned and shall deposit the passport in that
court as and when so directed.”
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Union of India & Anr.,
(supra), wherein, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court at para No.28,
had observed as under:-
“28. Rule 12 of the Rules provides that an ordinary
Passport shall ordinarily be valid for a period of ten (10)
years from the date of its issue. Consequently, a
Passport issued under Section 7 of the Act would
ordinarily be valid for a period of ten (10) years, unless
the Passport Authority, for reasons to be communicated
in writing to the applicant, considers it fit to issue the
same for a shorter duration.”
14. Perusal of the afore judgments relied upon by the parties makes
it clear that a general passport is renewed for a period of ten years,
therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have granted permission to
the petitioner for renewing the passport for a period of ten years.
15. In view of the above observations, the impugned order passed by
the learned Trial Court is required to be modified and accordingly, the
petitioner is permitted to get renewed/reissued his passport for a period
of ten years. However, at the same time, it would be apposite to impose
certain conditions. As such, after getting his passport renewed, the
petitioner is directed not to leave India without obtaining prior
permission from the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall be
free to impose any condition it deems fit and in accordance with law,
after considering such requests.
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026
R/SCR.A/14904/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240780252026)
16. The Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent and is
accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Tue Nov 03 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 04 00:00:49 IST 2026