Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonal K Amin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20434
1 WP-15601-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15601 of 2025
SONAL K AMIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shreyash Pandit - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making a prayer to issue direction to passport authorities to issue her
passport for period of 10 years.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
a senior citizen aged about 78 years and she want to visit United States of
America to visit her grandchildren. It is submitted that due to family dispute,
offences had been registered against petitioner. Petitioner is not an enami
hardened criminal or she will not avoid coming back to India as and when
required. It is further submitted that petitioner has filed an application for
grant of passport and order has also been passed by trial Court date
19.02.2024 in Case No.2351/2014. Offence registered against petitioner are
under Section 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 474 and 477 of Indian Penal Code
at Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur. Offence is of 25.02.2014. After this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20434
2 WP-15601-2025
offence no other offence has been registered against petitioner. It is
submitted that in said order no direction has been issued by trial Court that
passport is to be renewed for any specific period of time. It is submitted that
as per judgment passed in case of Roshan Lawrence Menezes Vs. Union of
India and others (W.P. (Lodging) No.699/2020), Bombay High Court held
that passport is to be renewed for period of 10 years under Rule 12 of
Passport Rules, 1980 if no direction has been given by trial Court to renew
passport for any specific period. It is submitted that said judgment is squarely
applicable in case of petitioner as no specific direction has been issued by the
trial Court, therefore, passport ought to have been issued in accordance with
Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980 for period of 10 years.
3. Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the prayer. It is
submitted by him that passport was issued for period of 1 year that has
rightly been done. Petitioner's purpose of visit is to meet the family
members, therefore, within period of one year petitioner can go and return
back to India. There is no illegality in action of the passport authority.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Applying for Visa for U.S.A. may take a long time and there is also
a long wait list. Visa may not be granted to petitioner within period of one
year. It is further submitted that petitioner is not a hardened criminal and will
abide by the laws. Case of petitioner is also directly covered by order passed
in case of Roshan Lawrence Menezes (supra) .
6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ
petition is disposed off in preliminary stage. No notice is issued to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20434
3 WP-15601-2025
respondents. Passport authority is directed to renew the passport of petitioner
for period of 10 years as per Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980. If there is any
amendment in the said rules, then said amendment shall be followed and
passport be issued for said period.
7. With aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed off.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
