AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a review application filed by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 12856 of 2026 seeking review of the Order dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court in the said writ petition. By the order under review, this Court disposed of the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.11.2025 for renewal of passport in accordance with law.
Heard Mr. M. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially contends that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 105 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. As his passport was due to expire shortly and criminal proceedings were pending against him before the trial Court, he approached the trial Court by filing an application seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for renewal of his passport for a period of ten years. The trial Court issued the NOC. However, the passport authority renewed the petitioner’s passport for a period of only one year, despite the petitioner having expressly sought an NOC for a period of ten years and despite the trial Court having allowed the application and issued the NOC in that regard. In support of his contention that the petitioner is entitled to a passport valid for a period of ten years, learned counsel relies upon Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the passport authority had renewed his passport for a short period of validity despite the issuance of an NOC by the trial Court. However, this Court, by order dated 06.05.2026, erroneously directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.11.2025. Therefore, as the substantive grievance of the petitioner was not adjudicated, the order dated 06.05.2026 constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the order dated 06.05.2026 is liable to be reviewed.
Learned Deputy Solicitor General does not dispute the fact that the substantive grievance of the petitioner was not adjudicated in the writ petition.
Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, at the outset, it is to be noted that, admittedly, the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings in S.C. No. 105 of 2022 before the trial Court. He submitted an application before the trial Court, vide Crl. M.P. No. 239 of 2025 in S.C. No. 105 of 2022, seeking permission/NOC for renewal of his passport for a period of ten years. The trial Court passed an order dated 22.09.2025, which reads as follows:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 under Section 6(2)(f) of The Passport Act, praying the court to permit him to renew his passport bearing No. M3194669 for a period of 10 years and to pass such orders in the interest of justice. ***
4.Heard both sides.
5.Whether the petitioner / A1 is entitled for the relief as sought for?
6.A perusal of the contents in the petition and the letter issued by the Regional Passport Office read about the pendency of this case. Since the counsel reported that petitioner / A1 shall seek necessary permission if he intends to travel abroad and that the petition is filed only for renewal of the Passport, the court feels it appropriate to allow the application.
7.In the result, petition is allowed and petitioner / A1 herein is permitted to renew his Passport bearing No. M3194669 as specified under law. The petitioner / A1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. He shall submit a copy of the Passport to this court after its renewal.
In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:
14.We are also unable to agree with the view that the appellant could not fall within GSR 570(E) because the NIA Court did not itself mention “ten years” in its order. The appellant’s application before that court specifically sought renewal for ten years. The NIA Court granted no objection for renewal, released the passport for that limited purpose, directed, redeposit after renewal and prohibited the appellant from obtaining any visa or travelling abroad without its permission.
Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), in the instant case also, when the petitioner sought an NOC for renewal of his passport for a period of ten years, and when the trial Court “allowed” the application, the logical interpretation is that the trial Court allowed the petitioner’s request for renewal of his passport for a period of ten years. Further, while allowing the petitioner’s request for renewal of the passport, the trial Court specifically directed that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without its permission. Thus, the trial Court has imposed terms and conditions upon the petitioner with regard to foreign travel. Therefore, the passport authority cannot narrowly interpret the direction of the Court and renew the petitioner’s passport for a shorter duration merely because the period of renewal/issuance was not expressly specified in the NOC order, when the trial Court had, in fact, allowed the request of the petitioner for renewal of his passport for ten years.
For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by this Court in the writ petition is hereby recalled and reviewed. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed, with a direction to the passport authority to renew the petitioner's passport for a period of ten years. Needless to mention, the petitioner shall remain bound by the terms and conditions imposed by the trial Court while allowing his NOC application.
. Accordingly, the review petition stands disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887