High Court of Gujarat
MAYANK GIRISHBHAI SHAHversusREGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
The High Court held that the passport authority must process the petitioner’s passport renewal as the trial court had partially allowed it and the petitioner was not seeking to travel abroad.
Summary
Mayank Girishbhai Shah, who is on bail in an NDPS trial, applied to renew his passport that was due to expire on 13‑08‑2025. The trial court partially allowed the renewal but imposed a condition that Shah could not leave India without further court permission. The Regional Passport Officer refused to process the renewal, insisting on a fresh court order permitting departure. Shah filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution, invoking the Passports Act, 1967, seeking a direction to the passport authority to process his renewal. The High Court held that the passport authority had not complied with the trial court’s order and that Shah’s request for renewal, without any intention to travel abroad, could not be denied. Consequently, the court directed the passport authority to process the renewal application and made the rule absolute.
Issues considered
- Whether the passport authority can lawfully refuse to process a passport renewal when the trial court has partially allowed the renewal but imposes a condition restricting travel.
- Whether the bail condition requiring the petitioner to submit his passport and obtain court permission to travel infringes the petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Passports Act, 1967, to compel the passport authority to process the renewal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Constitution of IndiaArticles 14Article 21Article 226Passports ActPassport renewalBail conditionsNDPS caseHigh Court writ petitionAdministrative law
Judgment
C/SCA/3943/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3943 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==============================================================
MAYANK GIRISHBHAI SHAH
Versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER & ANR.
==============================================================
Appearance:
RONITH JOY(9560) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 waives service of notice of rule
on behalf of the respondent no.1. With the consent of the
learned counsels for the respective parties, the present petition
is taken up for nal hearing today.
2. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 14,
21 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions
of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rules 1980 seeking following
reliefs:
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/3943/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the
present petition;
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ,
order or direction and be pleased to direct the Respondent herein to
take appropriate action by processing the passport renewal
application &le of the petitioner pending before it bearing Passport
Application Number: AH1070977272825 in accordance with law;
C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be please to grant any other and
further reliefs as it my deem &t and proper in the interest of Justice
and Equity;”
3. Mr. Joy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is facing trial vide NDPS Case No. 10/2022 which is
pending before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad and
that the petitioner is regularly appearing before the trial Court.
He submits that the petitioner is enlarged on bail by the 2 nd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide order
dated 09.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.733 of
2023. He submits that one of the conditions imposed by the trial
court while enlarging the petitioner on bail was that the
petitioner shall submit his passport before the concerned o6cer
and not leave India without prior approval of the Court. He
submits that since the passport of the petitioner was to expire on
13.08.2025, the petitioner moved application to get his passport
renewed before the Trial Court, which came to be partly allowed
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1336/2025 vide order
dated 02.05.2025. He submits that the petitioner got his
passport released from the Investigating O6cer and approached
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/3943/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
the respondent authority for renewal, the application no. being
AH1070977272825. He submits that the respondent authority
refused to process the application stating that in order to process
the application he has to produce an order from the concerned
Court permitting him to depart from India. He submits that the
petitioner only wants to get his passport renewed and is not
desirous to travel abroad at the moment. He has urged that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Pradip D. Bhate for the
respondent no.1 has submitted that 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. Mr. Bhate, learned
counsel after perusal of the record is unable to controvert the
facts of the case and therefore, submits that appropriate
directions be passed accordingly.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and have considered the facts of the petition. It is not disputed
that the petitioner is facing trial vide NDPS Case No. 10/2022
which is pending before the 3rd Additional District Judge,
Ahmedabad and he is enlarged on bail by the 2 nd Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide order dated
09.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.733 of 2023.
It appears that since the petitioner’s passport was to expire on
13.08.2025, he had moved an application to get his passport
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/3943/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
renewed before the Trial Court, which came to be partly allowed
vide order dated 02.05.2025. It appears that upon approaching
the respondent authority for renewal, the respondent authority
refused to renew the passport on the ground that appropriate
order from the concerned Court may be obtained permitting him
to depart India.
6. 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 petition
deserves to be allowed.
7. Considering the fact that the Trial Court had partly allowed
the petitioner’s application for renewal purpose and the
petitioner is not even desirous to travel abroad at the moment, I
am of the opinion that the respondent authority has not complied
with the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Trial Court.
8. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The
respondent authority is hereby directed to process the passport
renewal application of the petitioner being Passport Application
No. AH1070977272825 in accordance with law. Rule is made
absolute. 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 02/04/2026 17:09:58
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Constitution of India"Sign in to search