Bombay High Court
Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao vs Regional Passport Office Pune Passport ... on 14 January, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:4837-DB
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14116 OF 2024
Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao
Age about 53 years, occ. Agriculturist,
1202/2/14 Laxmi Vilas Apte Road,
Deccan Gymkhana,
Taluka-Purandar, Pune-411 004 ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional Passport Office Pune
Passport Bhawan, Sr. No.522,
Baner-Pashan Link Road, Baner,
Pune-411 045 ...Respondent
__________
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Shreyas Zarkar, Mr. Gaurav Shahane,
Mr. Abhishek Roy and Mr. Krushna Jaybhay for the Petitioner.
Ms. Leena Patil for Respondent.
__________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 14 JANUARY 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Advait M. Sethna, J.):
1. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, prays for the following substantive relief :-
"a) This Hon'ble Court, by way of approximate Writ Order or
direction, may kindly be pleased to direct Respondents to consider
Petitioner's case for Re-issue of Passport for a period of 10 year;"
3. The petitioner is thus seeking orders from this court for the reissue
of his passport for a period of 10 years, which had expired on 23 April
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
2024.
Factual Matrix :-
4. The following are the relevant facts necessary facts for adjudication
of this petition.
5. The petitioner is a social worker and a leader of a political party and
the respondent is the Regional Passport Office, Pune.
6. On 22 June 2005 a first information report ("FIR" in short) was
registered against the petitioner and 52 others under sections 143, 145,
147, 332, 333, 452, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner
was granted bail on 30 June 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 15,000/-.
7. On 28 November 2022, the petitioner filed an application before
the Ld. Sessions Judge, Pune, seeking the renewal of his passport, which
had expired on 19 December 2019. By an order dated 22 December 2022,
the court dismissed the application, stating that permission of the court is
not necessary to process the application for renewal of passport. Pursuant
to this order, the petitioner was issued a passport with a one-year validity
on 24 April 2023.
8. Following the renewal of his passport, the petitioner obtained an
order from the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, permitting him to travel.
With the necessary clearances in place, the petitioner traveled to the
United Kingdom from 1 June 2023 to 15 July 2023.
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
9. The petitioner's passport expired on 23 April 2024. Consequently,
the petitioner once again approached the Ld. Sessions Judge, Pune,
seeking the renewal of his passport. By an order dated 25 June 2024, the
court reiterated its earlier position, dismissing the application on the
ground of renewal of passport, court permission is not required.
10. Relying on the above order, the petitioner submitted an application
to the respondent on 6 August 2024, requesting the reissuance of his
passport. However, vide communication dated 26 August 2024, the
respondent deferred to decide the said application, citing the pendency of
a criminal case, relying on the the notification dated 25 August 1993 and
on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in Cyrus Keki Balsara
v. Union of India and Anr. 1
11. In the aforementioned backdrop, the petitioner has approached this
court, seeking reissuance of his passport for a period of 10 years.
Submissions :-
12. Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very
outset urged that the respondent, i.e., Regional Passport Office, Pune, had
declined to reissue the passport, on the sole ground of pending criminal
proceedings qua the petitioner. He urged that this is not a case where the
petitioner is convicted of any offence under the applicable criminal laws.
In this context, he would rely on Section 6(2)(e) of The Passports Act,
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1085
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
1967("Passports Act" for short), to contend that this is not a situation
where the petitioner is convicted by a court in India for such offence(s).
13. Mr. Kulkarni, would urge that the petitioner has duly and fully
complied with all legal obligations in regard to the pending criminal
proceedings. He has been fully cooperating with the law enforcing
agencies in respect of which, according to him, even the respondent would
nurture no grievance.
14. Mr. Kulkarni, would urge that right to travel abroad is a
fundamental right guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 ("Constitution of India" for short). Depriving a person of such
right by denying reissuance of the passport only on the ground of pending
criminal proceedings, violates such fundamental right of the petitioner.
15. According to Mr. Kulkrani, the Sessions Court ought to have
followed precedents where the reissuance of a passport was permitted
despite pending criminal proceedings, provided there was no conviction.
Mr. Kulkarni, would then submit that the petitioner was constrained to
approach this court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for the reason that the petitioner requires
the passport urgently, as he intends to travel to United Kingdom, where
his younger daughter has applied for further studies. As the petitioner is
required to travel abroad frequently to visit his daughter, reissuance of his
passport which has admittedly expired, cannot be denied to him by the
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
respondent-authority. In view thereof, Mr. Kulkarni, would urge that
appropriate directions be issued to the respondent for reissuance of the
petitioner's passport for a period of 10 years. He would thus submit that
the petition be allowed.
16. Ms. Leena Patil, learned counsel for the respondent would contest
the petition. She would refer to a communication dated 26 August 2024,
addressed by the respondent/Regional Passport Office, Pune to the
petitioner, in response to his passport application dated 6 August 2024.
The said communication reads thus :-
"This is in reference to your Passport application number
PN1079966572624 dated 06/08/2024.
On processing of the Application form, the following shortcomings came to
notice:-
1) A criminal case is pending against you as per Police
Verification Report.
It is informed that you have applied for RE-ISSUE of
passport and not RENEWAL of passport as can be
confirmed from the service applied for in the application
form. Renewal of passport is no longer permitted and all
existing passports are reissued now.
Please note that all passport applicants against whom
proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed are pending before a criminal court in India are
governed by the existing provisions of GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993.
The above requirement is already clarified by The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in order dated 08.04.2024 in WRIT
PETITION (L) NO. 1576 OF 2024 Cyrus Keki Balsara
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
Versus The Union of Inai and Anr...
In view of above, you are requested to furnish Court
permission for passport/ permission to depart from India
from the concerned court as per existing provisions of GSR
570(E) dated 25.08.1993 for further processing of your
passport application An undertaking as pe: GSR 570(E) for
the pending case also needs to be submitted Please furnish
the same for further processing of your passport application.
Please send self attested photocopies of the relevant
documents only by post. The originals of such documents
need to be carried while visiting Passport Office on Monday
Tuesday Thursday & Friday (not on Wednesday) between
09:00 am to 12:30 pm only. Send the documents by
registered post to the address of the Passport Office
mentioned above. Please make sure to mention your file
number and date on top of each page/document and also on
the envelope
If you live in the vicinity of Passport Office Pune or have
been specifically asked to appear in person you could choose
to submit the required documents to the Enquiry Officer at
the Passport Office on on Monday Tuesday Thursday &
Friday (not on Wednesday) between 09.00 12:30 pm only.
If am to the service is rendered, please ignore this letter or
please treat this letter as cancelled."
17. Ms. Patil, would hence submit that the case of the petitioner
squarely falls within the provisions of section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act
which categorically refers to pending proceedings in respect of the offences
alleged to have been committed, which are pending before the competent
criminal court in India. In light of the said provision, according to her, the
petitioner ought to seek orders from the competent criminal court for
reissuance of passport, as also provided in the notification dated 25 August
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
1993, i.e., G.S.R. 570(E). The said provisions of 6(2)(e) and 6(2)(f) of the
Passports Act; along with the notification dated 25 August 1993 reads as
thus :-
"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc-
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or
travel document for visiting any foreign country under
clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 5 on any one or
more of the following grounds, and on no other ground,
namely:--
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period
of five years immediately preceding the date of his
application, been convicted by a court in India for any
offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in
respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two
years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by the applicant are pending
before a criminal court in India;"
The Notification dated 25 August 1993, issued by the Ministry of
External Affairs, Government of India, in G.S.R. 570(E) reads thus :-
"G.S.R. 570(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967
(15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of
the Government of India in the Ministry of External
Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976,
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is
necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempt
citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of
an offence alleged to have been committed by them are
pending before a criminal court in India and who
produce orders from the court concerned permitting
them to depart from India, from the operation of the
provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of
the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely
:--
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall
be issued--
(i) for the period specified in order of the court
referred to above, if the court specifies a period for
which the passport has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport
or for the travel abroad is specified in such order,
the passport shall be issued for a period one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad
for a period less than one year, but does not specify
the period validity of the passport, the passport
shall be issued for one year; or
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad
for a period exceeding one year, and does not
specify the validity of the pass- ort, then the
passport shall be issued for the period of travel
abroad specified in the order.
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) and (a) (iii)
above can be further renewed for one year at a time,
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the
period sanctioned by the court; and provided further
that, in the meantime the order of the court is not
cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be
further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order
specifying a further period of validity of the passport or
specifying a period for travel abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing
to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if
required by the court concerned, appear before it at any
time during the continuance in force of the passport so
issued."
18. She would accordingly submit that under the said notification
dated 25 August 1993 (Supra), where there are proceedings pending
before a competent criminal court, appropriate orders are required from
such court, permitting the person concerned to depart from India.
Accordingly, she would submit that considering the statutory framework
under the Passports Act and the rules, the petitioner ought to follow such
procedure as contemplated under the statutory provisions, and approach
the competent criminal court for the purpose of reissuance of passport.
Ms. Patil would contend that considering the above statutory
provisions/framework/scheme the petition is devoid of merits and ought
to be dismissed.
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
Analysis :-
19. Considering the factual conspectus of the present case, we find that
it is an undisputed fact that this is a case where criminal proceedings in
respect of the offences alleged/charged, are pending before the criminal
court against the petitioner. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner is
not convicted by any court(s) in India for any offence charged. Therefore,
one has to examine the petitioner's case in the light of provision under
section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act (Supra), which would be applicable in
the given facts and circumstances. So also, a perusal of the above
notification dated 25 August 1993 (Supra) makes it clear that, one of the
conditions provides for issuance/reissuance of a passport. It alternatively
provides that, if no period for issuance/reissuance of passport for traveling
abroad is specified, then in that event, a passport shall be issued for a
period of one year. The said notification further mandates that citizens of
India against whom the proceedings are pending before any court in
respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, they ought
to furnish orders from the concerned court permitting them to depart
from India. It is thus clear that in the given factual matrix, the provisions
under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act (Supra) read with the
notification dated 25 August 1993 (Supra) will be applicable.
20. At this juncture, it would be apposite for us to refer to the decision
of this court Cyrus Keki Balsara v. Union of India and Anr (Supra)
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this court of which one of us, (Mr.
G.S. Kulkarni, J) was a member. In such case the court was dealing with a
similar situation as in the present case wherein a direction was sought to
issue a fresh passport on the basis of an online application submitted on
behalf of the said petitioner on 28 August 2023. The Court in the said
decision had the occasion to examine the relevant provisions of the
Passports Act, Rules read with the notification dated 25 August 1993.
The court had also referred to the various decisions on this issue. In the
context in hand the relevant paragraphs of the said decision (Supra) need
to be noted which read thus :-
15. The present case is certainly not a case which would fall
under the provisions of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act as
there is no conviction. It is a case falling under the provisions of
sub-section (2)(f) of section 6 where the criminal proceedings
are pending. Thus the reliance of Mr. Kantawala on the decision
of Vangala Kasturi angacharyulu (Supra) as also on the order of
the Division Bench in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala
(Supra) which is an order solely relied on, would not assist the
case of the petitioner which is a case for re-issuance of the
passport.
16. Further, it appears that when the petitioner says that his
application is for renewal of a passport, it is a misnomer, as the
Act and the rules provide for re-issuance of a passport after the
same expires. As the Passport Act does not contain any separate
provision for renewal of a passport as the prescribed form also
provides for re-issuance, we have not been shown any provision,
otherwise.
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
17. In the light of the above discussion, we accept the
contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the
petitioner's case falls under the provisions of section 6(2)(f) and
also stands covered by the notification issued by Central
Government dated 25th August 1993. In these circumstances,
the petitioner would be required to make applications to the
criminal courts where the cases are pending for re-issuance of a
passport. We thus, find that the relief as prayed for by the
petitioner in the present proceedings, cannot be granted.
18. We however, keep open the petitioner's rights to make
application to the appropriate criminal courts so as to obtain
orders in terms of the notification dated 25th August 1993.
19. All contentions in that regard are expressly kept open.
20. Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
21. Needless to observe that, if the petitioner makes such
applications, the petitioner is at liberty to move the court for an
early hearing in the event of any urgency is shown by the
petitioner to travel abroad.
21. In our considered view, the said decision (Supra) of this court would
be binding on us in dealing with the present case, wherein the facts and
circumstances, the reliefs sought coupled with the applicable legal
provisions under the Passports Act (Supra), read with notification dated
25 August 1993 are similar. Thus, the inescapable conclusion would be to
follow the decision (Supra) and the findings, reasons recorded in the said
judgment.
22. We may now also advert to an order passed by this court Bhimesh
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
Narendra Mehta v. The Union of India & Anr.2 passed by this Court
(Coram : G.S. Kulkarni J. and Advait M. Sethna, J.) wherein considering
decision of this court in the case of Cyrus Keki Balsara (Supra). The order
in the said writ petition passed by us reads thus :-
"1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this petition. The
substantive prayers as made in the petition which reads thus:
"a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, thereby directing Respondent No.2 to re-issue/renew
passport to petitioner.
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order restraining
Respondents from taking any coercive action against Petitioner in
furtherance of notice dated 25.1.2023."
2. Learned counsel for respondent has placed for consideration a decision
of the Division Bench of this Court in Cyrus Keki Balsara Vs. Union of
India & Anr. to which one of us (G. S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member.
Considering the position of law as considered in the said decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that the petitioner
would make an application before the appropriate Criminal court for
orders be passed in regard on the passport application of the petitioner.
3. Let such an application be filed within one week from today. If the
same is filed, let appropriate orders on such application be passed by the
concerned Court within two weeks of the filing of the said application.
4. All contentions of the parties on such proposed proceedings are
expressly kept open.
5. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs."
23. In the light of the above discussion and considering the consistent
view taken by the Court on such proceedings, we accept the contention
raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's case falls under the
19. WP 14116-2024(1).doc
provisions of section 6(2)(f) and also stands covered by the notification issued
by Central Government dated 25th August 1993. In these circumstances, the
petitioner would be required to make applications to the criminal court seeking
orders that the petitioner be permitted reissuance of his passport. We thus, find
that the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present proceedings, cannot
be granted.
24. The petitioner is permitted to make application to the appropriate
Criminal Courts to obtain orders for reissuance/renewal of his passport. If such
an application is made, the same be decided by the Criminal Court within 10
days from its filing. Ordered accordingly.
25. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
26. Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
RAJESH RAJESH VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.01.31
18:20:41 +0530
