Facts
The petitioner, whose passport had expired, applied for a 10-year renewal to travel abroad
Source reference: p. 1-2The respondent (Passport Authority) refused to renew the passport for the standard 10-year term, citing the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner and the limitations prescribed under GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993
Source reference: p. 2The respondent contended that since the Trial Court’s order permitting travel did not specify a validity period, the passport could only be renewed for one year
Source reference: p. 2, para. 6Issues
1. Whether the Passport Authority is mandated to renew a passport for a full 10-year term despite the pendency of criminal proceedings when the Trial Court has not specified a shorter duration
Source reference: p. 2, para. 32. Whether the guidelines established by the Bombay High Court regarding the reconciliation of the Passport Rules, 1980 and GSR Notification 570(E) are applicable to the present facts
Source reference: p. 5, para. 12Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, alongside GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which provides exemptions for citizens with pending criminal cases
Source reference: p. 3, para. 8The Passport Rules, 1980, which mandate a 10-year renewal for qualifying adults
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10Persuasive precedent of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014 SCC Online Bom 356), which clarified that the power to restrict travel lies with the Trial Court, not the Passport Authority
Source reference: p. 5-6Reasoning
The Court examined the ambiguity between GSR Notification 570(E) and the general Passport Rules. While the respondent argued that Clause (ii) of the Notification limits renewal to one year if the Trial Court is silent on the period, the Court adopted the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani
Source reference: p. 4, para. 9; p.5, para. 12The Court reasoned that the Passport Authority lacks the jurisdiction to decide an accused's right to travel; this authority is vested solely in the Trial Court
Source reference: p. 6, para. 12Consequently, if a Trial Court grants permission to renew as per "Rules," the 10-year period under the Passport Rules, 1980, should prevail, as a shorter 1-year renewal creates administrative hurdles for obtaining visas
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner is entitled to a 10-year renewal.
The Court directed the respondent to decide the renewal application and issue a passport with 10-year validity within four weeks, clarifying that the petitioner must still obtain specific permission and comply with conditions from the concerned Trial Court before undertaking any actual travel abroad.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 13The petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute
Source reference: p. 6, para. 14Original Court PDF
ABDULHANIF ABDULRAZAQ SHAIKHvsTHE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in