VINAYGIRI KALUGIRI GOSWAMIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA

     C/SCA/2522/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2522 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No

==========================================================
                       VINAYGIRI KALUGIRI GOSWAMI
                                  Versus
                        THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 20/03/2026

                                 JUDGMENT


1.      Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned
counsel for the respondents waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the parties,
the matter is taken up for nal hearing today.


2.      Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of
The Passport Act seeking following reliefs:

        “A.     Admit this application;

        B.     Allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ order or
        direction directing respondent no.2 passport authorities to issue


                                   Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/2522/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




        new passport to the present petitioner in the interest of justice.

        C.    Grant such other and further relief(s) in the fact and
        circumstances of the present petition as deemed !t in the
        interest of justice;”


3.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
an FIR being No. 11206038230223/2023 was registered at
Langhnaj Police Station against the petitioner for o2ence
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal
Code, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.
4378/2023, wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2025 convicted
the petitioner for the o2ence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC.
Against this, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.
504/2025, wherein the Appellate Court vide judgment and order
dated 01.11.2025 partly allowed the appeal and extended the
bene t of probation to the petitioner. That, the petitioner had
applied for a new passport by way of online application on the
website of the respondent no.2 authority. That, the respondent
no.2 authority has not issued a new passport to the present
petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case/proceeding
and refused to issue new passport, without the order of the
concerned Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
has preferred the present petition.


4.      Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Perused the materials available on record.


5.      Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that passport
authority has erred in not considering the fact that pendency of


                                  Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/2522/2026                         JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




criminal proceeding is no ground to refuse passport and
moreover, no case or appeal is pending against the petitioner.
He has submitted that a false case has been          led against the
petitioner, wherein the petitioner was convicted and appeal led
against the conviction order is disposed of by giving bene t u/s 4
of the Probation of O2ender Act and hence, no case is pending
against the petitioner. Over and above the grounds agitated in
the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Chaudhari has urged
that the present petition is required to be allowed.


6.      Mr. Bhate, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the passport authorities will issue the passport as
per the rules and the prevalent noti cations. He submits that,
however, there is no restriction on this Court to issue a direction
for issuance of the passport for a certain period of validity as per
the rules. He therefore, submits that appropriate directions be
passed accordingly.


7.      I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have considered the facts of the petition. It is not disputed
that the FIR has been led against the present petitioner which
was registered under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 being FIR No. 11206038230223/2023 led before the
Langhnaj Police Station which came to be registered as Criminal
Case No. 4378/2023 whereby the petitioner was convicted for
the o2ence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC. It is stated and
submitted that against the said judgment and order, the
petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 504/2025, wherein
the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2025
partly allowed the appeal and extended the bene t of probation

                               Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/2522/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




to the petitioner and therefore, there is no criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioner. The relevant operative part of the
said impugned judgment and order reads as under:


        “Appellants/accused are hereby directed to execute bond of
        Rs.15,000/- as per Section 4 of the Probation of O/ender Act
        read with Section 361 of Cr.P.C which surety of like amount for
        a period of 2 years before the Ld. Trial Court, failing which Ld.
        Trial Court is ordered to issue non bailable warrant of arrest
        against the appellants directing them to receive sentence.”


It appears that the petitioner had applied for a new passport
before the respondent no.2 authority however, the respondent
no.2 authority refused to issue a new passport to the present
petitioner        on   the   ground      of    pendency       of     criminal
case/proceeding.


8.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and averments made in the petition, the matter deserves
to be allowed.


9.      In the result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall prefer a fresh application before the respondent – passport
authority along with the relevant facts and documentary
evidences. The petitioner is permitted to             le the application
before the respondent - passport authority within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and the
respondent – passport authority shall decide the same in


                                 Page 4 of 5
       C/SCA/2522/2026                                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




 accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing
 to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
 period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application. If
 the petitioner is found to be eligible, the respondent – passport
 authority shall issue a fresh passport to the petitioner. Rule is
 made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
 permitted.

                                                               (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 ANUSRI


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 18:05:24




                                                 Page 5 of 5