A petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to challenge an order dated 29-09-2026 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court 1, Ahmedabad, whereby the petitioner’s application was partly allowed and he was permitted to renew his passport for three years in terms of a circular dated 25-08-1993 by the Ministry of External Affairs.
The petitioner was an accused in a CBI Criminal Case for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC for which the trial of the case was pending before the ACJM, CBI Court 1, Ahmedabad. His passport was due to expire on 30-05-2027, so he filed an application seeking permission to renew it for ten years. By order dated 29-09-2026, the trial court partly allowed the application and permitted renewal for only three years. The 67-year-old petitioner argued that he had to travel abroad for business and that all his children were settled outside India, in the UK, Dubai and Canada.
Respondent 1 had no objection to a three-year renewal and urged that conditions be imposed, such as intimation and prior permission from the trial court before leaving India. The APP adopted that stance. Respondent 3, the Regional Passport Officer, vehemently argued that the petition was premature as no application had been made to it.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mool Chand Tyagi rejected the prematurity objection, reasoning that the petitioner could apply for renewal only after obtaining the Court’s permission, so the cause of action before the Regional Passport Office would arise only after that permission was granted. On merits, the Court held that a general passport is renewed for ten years, and that therefore, the trial court ought to have permitted renewal for that period. Hence, the Court modified the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to get his passport renewed or re-issued for ten years.
However, the Court directed that, after renewal, the petitioner was not to leave India without the prior permission of the trial court, which remained free to impose any condition it deemed fit and in accordance with law. Thus, the petition was allowed to that extent and disposed of.
