Bombay High Court
Jiten Rameshchandra Shah And Anr vs Mukesh Shantilal Mamaniya on 30 September, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:41567
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9843 OF 2025
1. Jiten Rameshchandra Shah
2. Mona Jiten Shah ...Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s. Shah Tokarshi Keshavji and Co.
2. M/s. Rusam Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9845 OF 2025
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI 1. Jiten Rameshchandra Shah
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
2. Mona Jiten Shah ...Petitioners
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.09.30 Versus
19:22:05 +0530
1. Mukesh Shantilal Mamaniya
2. M/s. Rusam Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents
Mr. Kamlesh Mishra, for the Petitioners.
Miss. Shraddha Chheda, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 30th SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The petitioners - original defendants take exception to the
orders dated 30th June, 2025, passed by the learned Judge, City
Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, in Notice of Motion of Motion
No.3038 of 2025, in SC Suit No.1481 of 2024 and Notice of
Motion No.3039 of 2025 in Short Cause Suit No.742 of 2025,
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
whereby the learned Judge granted permission to the Petitioners
to renew their respective Passports for the period of one year
only.
3. Though the litigation between the petitioners and respon-
dents - original Plaintiffs has a chequered history for the pur-
pose of the determination of these petitions the bare minimum
facts can be stated as under:
3.1 The respondents - plaintiffs were carrying on business
from Shop Nos.1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor and Shop No.101
on the first floor of the building known as "Chheda Cottege",
Vile-Parle, Mumbai. The petitioners acquired the said property.
On 31st December, 2013, the petitioners executed two registered
agreements for permanent alternate accommodation with the
plaintiffs, thereby agreeing to provide shops in the proposed new
building.
3.2 Asserting breach of the stipulations in the said agree-
ments, the respondents instituted suits seeking a declaration
that, the said agreements were valid, subsisting and binding on
the defendants and their successors in interest, and for a decree
of specific performance and the consequential reliefs. As the pe-
titioners did not comply with the orders of the Court, bailable
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
warrants came to be issued against the petitioners. In the
meanwhile, the petitioners left India.
3.3 A lookout notice was also issued against the petitioners.
When the petitioners applied for renewal of the Passport before
the Consulate General of India at Dubai, the petitioners became
aware of the lookout notice. The petitioners filed Notices of
Motion before the City Civil Court to set aside the lookout
notices and cancel the bailable warrants. By orders dated 7 th
May, 2025, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, set aside the
lookout notices and stayed the execution of the bailable
warrants till the appearance of the petitioners before the Court.
3.4 The Consulate General of India called upon the petitioners
to submit 'No Objection' from the Court before which the
proceedings in which bailable warrants came to be issued, were
pending. The petitioners were thus constrained to take out the
instant Notices of Motion seeking no objection of the Court to
renew the passports for a term of 10 years.
3.5 The respondents resisted the prayers in Notices of Motion.
3.6 By the impugned orders, the learned Judge, City Civil
Court, was persuaded to allow the Notices of Motion observing
that since the Court had set aside the lookout notices and
stayed the execution of bailable warrants, no prejudice would be
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
caused to the plaintiff, if no objection for renewal was granted.
The learned Judge was, however, of the view that the passports
were required to be renewed for a period of one year.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
5. I have heard Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners, and Miss Shraddha Chheda, the learned Counsel for
the respondents, at some length. With the assistance of the
learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on
record.
6. Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, would
urge that the impugned orders restricting the term of renewal of
passports to one year, is in teeth of the provisions contained in
the Passports Act, 1967, the Passport Rules, 1980 and Notifica-
tion dated 25th August, 1993 issued by the Central Government
under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967. Mr. Mishra would
urge that, under the Passport Rules the passport is required to
be renewed for a term of 10 years. The learned Judge, City Civil
Court, had not ascribed any reason for restricting the term of
renewal of passports for one year only. In the absence of any
justifiable reason, neither the Passport Authorities nor the
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
Court can artificially reduce the term of renewal of passport,
submitted Mr. Mishra.
7. To bolster up the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Mishra
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Capt.
Amol Vasant Kelkar vs. Union of India and ors.1, and an order
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Gaurav Goenka vs. The State of Maharashtra2.
8. In opposition to this, Miss. Chheda, the learned Counsel
for the respondents, stoutly opposed the prayers in the petition.
It was submitted that the circumstances in which the petition-
ers have made themselves scarce and left the respondents in the
lurch cannot be lost sight of. Inviting the attention of the Court
to the various orders passed by this Court while the suits were
pending on the file of this Court and the conduct of the
petitioners evincible from the record, Miss. Chheda would urge
the learned Judge, City Civil Court, correctly exercised the
discretion to give 'no objection' to the renewal of passports for
the term of one year. Once the passports are renewed, the
petitioners must appear before the City Civil Court. Thereafter,
if warranted by the circumstances, the passports can be
renewed for a further term. In any event, according to Miss.
1 Criminal Writ Petition No.234 of 2020, dated 8th March, 2021.
2 IA(St)/11956/2025 in WP/2557/2025, dated 13/8/2025.
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
Chheda, the impugned orders do not suffer from such
perversity or infirmity that they warrant interference in exercise
of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
9. In order to examine the justifiability of the impugned order
restricting the 'no objection' for renewal of the passports to one
year only, few provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, deserve to
be noted.
10. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Passport Authority to,
inter alia, issue the passport or travel document. Section 7 of
the Passports Act provides that a passport or travel document
shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period
as may be prescribed and different periods may be prescribed
for different classes of passports or travel documents or for
different categories of passports or travel documents under each
such class.
11. Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 prescribes the dura-
tion of the passport or travel documents. The relevant part of
Rule 12 reads as under:
"12. Duration of passports or travel documents.-
(1) An ordinary passport for persons other than children be-
low the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty
pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years from the date of
its issue.
(1A) An ordinary passport for a child below the age of 15
years, containing thirty-six pages shall be in force for a period
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
of 5 years from the date of its issue or until the child attains the
age of 15 years, whichever is earlier."
12. The Passport Authority is also empowered to refuse to is-
sue a passport or travel document under Section 6 of the Pass-
ports Act, 1967. For the purpose of the determination of the
controversy at hand, the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(f)
deserve to be extracted. They read as under:
"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. Etc.:
.........
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport au-
thority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for
visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2)
of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and
on no other ground, namely: -
.........
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal
court in India."
13. Evidently, the aforesaid provisions empower the Passport
Authority to refuse to issue passport or travel document, where
the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant were pending before a Criminal
Court in India. To ameliorate the hardship, the Central
Government, in exercise of the power under section 22(a) of the
Passports Act, 1967, issued a Notification dated 25 th August,
1993 to exempt citizens from operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the
said Act, subject to certain conditions. Under the said
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
Notification, the Central Government exempted from the opera-
tion of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (ii) of Section 6
of the Passports Act, 1967, the citizens of India against whom
the proceedings in respect of offences alleged to have been
committed by them, were pending before a Criminal Court in
India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting
them to depart from India,. One of the conditions is that the
passport shall be renewed for the period specified in the order of
the Court concerned, if the Court specifies a period for which
the passport has to be issued. If the Court does not specify the
period, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year.
14. This brings to the fore the role of the Courts in granting no
objection for the issue or renewal of passport and also specify
the period for which the passport is to be issued or renewed. In
the case of Capt. Amol Kelkar (supra), on which reliance was
placed by Mr. Mishra, the petitioner therein was arraigned for
the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The learned
Magistrate had granted 'no objection' for renewal of passport for
two years only. This Court found that the learned Magistrate
had not assigned any reason as to why 'no objection' for renewal
was granted only for two years. That rendered the direction for
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
renewal of passport for limited period erroneous. This Court
directed that the passport be renewed for a term of 10 years in
accordance with Rule 12.
15. In the case of Narendra K. Ambwani vs. Union of India and
ors3, a Division Bench of this Court directed that, in all cases
where the Magistrate's Court directs renewal of the passports
under the rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and pass-
ports other than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be re-
newed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may
be from the date of its issue.
16. Following the aforesaid pronouncement in the case of Mr.
Samip Nitin Ranjani vs. Union of India 4 another Division Bench
of this Court reiterated that when an application is made for
renewal of passport and the Magistrate grants no objection, the
Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the
Passports Act and Rules made thereunder.
17. In a recent order in the case of Kartik Vaman Bhat vs.
Union of India and others5 another Division Bench of this Court
took note of the fact that the Office Memorandum dated 10 th
October, 2019, issued by the Central Government in
3 2014(4) Bom. C.R. 281.
4 2016 SCC Online Bom 14539.
5 WP(L)/14496/2024 dtd.21/6/2024.
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
continuation of the Notification dated the 25th August, 1993,
stipulates that mere filing of an FIR or case under investigation
does not come within the purview of section 6(2)(f) of the Pass-
port Act 1967, and a criminal case would be considered to be
pending only when the Court has taken cognizance of the same.
Therefore, the refusal by the Passport Authority to proceed with
the application for issue of passport on the ground that an
inquiry ordered under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, was pending, was found to be unjustifiable.
18. The aforesaid pronouncements are required to be consid-
ered in the backdrop of the overarching proposition that the
right to travel abroad is considered to be a facet of fundamental
right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India subject to reasonable restrictions, which
are imposed by law and the Courts.
19. Reverting to the facts of the case, first and foremost, it is
necessary to note that the impugned order came to be passed by
the learned Judge, City Civil Court, in a civil suit, where bail-
able warrants were issued against the petitioners to secure their
presence. In the strict sense, the provisions contained in Section
6(2)(f) (extracted above) were not attracted. The Notification
exempting the citizens from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f)
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
envisages the 'no objection' of the concerned Criminal Court
where the Criminal case is pending. In the instant case, 'no
objection' from the Civil Court was insisted upon as the bailable
warrants were issued by the Civil Court against the petitioners.
This subtle yet significant difference was lost sight of by the
learned Judge.
20. Secondly, the impugned orders do not spell out the
reasons which weighed with the learned Judge to grant no
objection for the renewal of the passports for one year only. The
stipulation as to the term for renewal are sans reasons.
Moreover, it is imperative to note that the learned Judge, City
Civil Court, had already cancelled the lookout notices and
stayed the execution of the bailable warrants against the peti-
tioners, albeit to facilitate their return to India and appearance
before the Court.
21. In this background, coupled with the absence of any
reason as to why the term of renewal of the passports was to be
restricted to one year instead of the term permissible under
Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, the impugned orders become
unsustainable.
22. Miss. Chheda would urge that the petitioners can renew
the passports for one year and again seek no objection for
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
renewal of the passports for a further term, once they appear
before the City Civil Court and, thus, the impugned orders do
not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.
23. Renewal of a passport for a short duration cannot be said
to be inconsequential. The issue of travel documents is often
contingent upon the validity of the remainder term of the
passport. Therefore, in the absence of any justifiable or com-
pelling reason, the renewal of the passport ought to be for the
term as prescribed under the Passport Rules.
24. The upshot of the aforesaid consideration is that the
petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned orders are re-
quired to be modified.
25. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petitions stand allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders dated 30 th June, 2025 passed by
the learned City Civil Judge, stand modified to the effect
that the passport of the petitioners be renewed in
accordance with Rule 12 of the Passports Rule, 1980,
subject to the petitioners satisfying the other conditions
3-WP9843-2025+.DOC
and requirements under the Passports Act, 1967 and
Rules, 1980.
(iii) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
