[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dipakkumar Chhibubhai Patel vs Union Of India on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4428 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DIPAKKUMAR CHHIBUBHAI PATEL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH H JOSHI(6495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HARSHIL M. RAJPUT(18745) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the present writ petition under Articles 14, 19, 21
and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for direction to issue / renew passport to the
petitioner.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was issued Passport No. J3568432 by the
Regional Passport Office, Surat on 29.10.2010, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
valid upto 28.10.2020. He submits that after expiry of the
said passport, the petitioner applied for re-issue / renewal
of the passport through Passport Seva Kendra. During the
process of police verification, it was reported that a
criminal case came to be registered with Valsad Rural
Police Station for the offences punishable under Section
188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 51 of the
Disaster Management Act. He submits that after
completion of the investigation, the police submitted a
Final Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Valsad and the learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Valsad, vide order dated
24.06.2021, was pleased to stop the proceedings under
Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby
releasing the petitioner. He submits that thereafter, the
concerned Police Authority also issued a certificate dated
29.12.2023 stating that the petitioner has been released
in the said case. He submits that despite the aforesaid
facts, the Passport Authority issued communications
seeking clarification regarding the police verification. He
submits that thereafter, the Passport Authority issued a
File Closure Letter dated 11.03.2024, stating that the
passport application file of the petitioner has been closed
and the respondent Passport Authority has informed the
petitioner that the order passed by the learned Court is
not clear as to whether the criminal proceedings have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
been finally disposed of. It has further been stated that
the police verification report has not been considered by
the Passport Authority for issuance of passport. He
submits that the learned Court has already passed an
order in the said criminal case and the petitioner has also
obtained a certificate from the concerned Police Authority
stating that the petitioner has been released in the said
case and despite the same, the respondent authorities
have failed to consider the said documents and have not
issued the passport to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, learned advocate for the
respondent submits that the passport application of the
petitioner is to be processed in accordance with the GSR
Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. He submits that
the citizens who are facing criminal proceedings have to
produce orders from the Court concerned permitting
them to depart from India.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the
documents on record and considered the submissions.
5. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the FIR came to
be lodged with the Valsad Rural Police Station. Further,
the investigation is over and the charge sheet is also filed.
6. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the GSR
Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
"G.S.R 570 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of the 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, the
Central Government, being of the opinion that it is
necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts
citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of
an offences 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 or 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 periodvalidity 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 passport, then the
passport shall be issued for period of travel abroad
specified in the order.
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii)
above can be further renewed for one year at a time,
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be
further renewed only on the basis of 3 fresh court order
specifying a further period of validity of the passport or
specifying a period for travel abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall given 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."
7. Clause (ii) thereof states that if there is no period
specified in the order passed by the Trial Court for
issuance of passport, the passport shall be issued for a
period of 1 year. The said Notification also specifies in
Clause (i) that if the Court specifies the period for which
the passport has to be issued, then the passport shall be
issued for such a specified period.
8. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ
petition No.361 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014 has held thus:-
"10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue
guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt
of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all
cases, where the Magistrate's court has directed that the
passports may be renewed as per the "Rules".
11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate's court directs
renewal of the passports under the Rules, the
Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports
other than for a child aged more than 15 years
shall be renewed for a period of ten years or
twenty years as the case may be from the date of
its issue.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
All qualifying applicants are entitled to have
passport renewed for atleast ten years. The
Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports
of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the
applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the
Regional Passport Officer shall issue the additional
booklet to the same passport provided the
applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order
making the reference to the said Notification No.
G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the
passport shall be renewed only for such period that
the Magistrate may specify in the order or as
otherwise specified in the said Notification where
the passport of the applicant is valid for less than
one year, the additional booklet may be issued
subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf
only of the Magistrate concerned.
12. For avoidance of doubt, we clarify that the guidelines
set out herein will be applicable only in the cases where
the learned Magistrate ordered renewal of the passports
as per Passport Rules, 1980 and to no other. In other
cases, where the learned Magistrate had granted
permission to the accused persons to depart from India,
the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act,
1967 and the Notification(s) issued thereunder from time
to time by the Ministry of External Affairs or such other
competent authority so empowered, will continue to
apply and directions permitting the accused persons to
depart from India and/or the orders permitting renewal
of the passports of such accused persons shall continue
to be governed by such Notification(s)."
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
present case. 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.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the
respondent authorities are directed to renew the passport
of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. However, it is
clarified that if the petitioner has to undertake any travel
abroad, he will have to make appropriate application to
the Trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad,
which shall impose such conditions as it deems fit and
proper in case of the petitioner. If any application for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
renewal of the passport is made by the petitioner, the
same be decided expeditiously within a period of 4 weeks
from the date of such application.
With the aforesaid directions, the present Special
Civil Application is allowed and accordingly stands
disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
