Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chinubhai Shankarlal Panchal, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer to renew his passport (No. Y5394657) for a period of ten years. The petitioner had an FIR registered against him in 1996 (FIR No. 341/1996) at Shaherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(1), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A charge-sheet was filed on 18.09.1996, and Criminal Case No. 935/1996 was registered, which was still pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The petitioner had previously obtained permission from the 3rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, for passport renewal in 2022 and 2024, and the passport was renewed for ten years vide order dated 02.01.2025. However, when the petitioner approached the passport authority again, he was informed that due to the pending criminal case, the passport would be renewed for only one year. The petitioner argued that as per applicable rules, the renewal should be for ten years. The court considered the submissions and relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors., which laid down guidelines for passport authorities to follow the directions of the trial court. The court held that the passport authority cannot restrict the period of renewal to one year when the trial court has directed renewal as per rules. The court directed the respondent authority to renew the petitioner's passport for a period of ten years in accordance with the rules and the directions of the trial court. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Renewal of Passport - Pending Criminal Case - Validity Period - The petitioner sought renewal of his passport for ten years, but the passport authority renewed it for only one year citing pendency of a criminal case. The court held that the authority must follow the directions of the trial court and the applicable rules, which do not restrict the period of renewal to one year merely because a criminal case is pending. The court directed renewal for ten years as per the rules. (Paras 1-6) B) Passport Law - Guidelines for Passport Authorities - Compliance with Trial Court Orders - The court relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors., which issued guidelines that passport authorities must comply with the directions of the trial court regarding renewal. The court held that the authority cannot unilaterally reduce the period of validity. (Paras 3.1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the passport authority can restrict renewal of passport to one year instead of ten years when a criminal case is pending against the applicant, and whether the authority is bound by the directions of the trial court and applicable rules.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The respondent authority is directed to renew the petitioner's passport for a period of ten years in accordance with the rules and the directions of the trial court. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Passport renewal
- pending criminal case
- period of validity
- guidelines for passport authorities
- Section 6(2)(f) Passports Act
- 1967
