Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHADAB AYUB KHANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court directed that the passport be issued/renewed for a period of ten years.

Summary

Shadab Ayub Khan applied to the Bombay High Court seeking clarification on the validity period of his passport renewal after the court had allowed his interim application in part. The Department indicated that, absent a specific direction, it would issue a passport valid for only one year under the 1993 Notification, a 2019 MEA letter, and the 2020 Passport Manual. The applicant’s counsel argued that a ten‑year passport was necessary and that the earlier order’s wording did not limit the period. The judge noted that granting a one‑year passport would be futile and therefore directed the passport authority to issue a passport for ten years, consistent with the applicant’s request. The order clarified that the earlier order and the present one must be read together, and the praecipe was disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court must specifically direct the period of validity for a passport renewal under the applicable passport regulations.
  • Whether the applicant is entitled to a ten‑year passport despite the Department’s standard practice of issuing a one‑year passport in the absence of such a direction.

Subjects

  • passport renewal
  • validity period
  • interim application
  • High Court of Bombay
  • procedural direction

Judgment

                                                                         1. CRI IA-1803-26.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1803 OF 2026
                                            IN
                           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 844 OF 2022

           Shadab Ayub Khan                                          .. Applicant
                      Versus
           Union of India & Anr.                                     .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Mr. Aabad H. Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sumit Krishnakumar
             Tiwari, Advocates for Applicant
            Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh (through VC) a/w Mr. Pratham Gawali &
             Ms. Pratishtha Shukla, Advocates for Respondent No. 1
            Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No. 2 - State
                                           ...................
                                           CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                           DATE         : SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

           Deshmukh (through VC), learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and

           Ms. Phad, learned APP for State.

           2.       Praecipe dated 01.09.2026 is moved on behalf of Applicant for

           clarification in the order dated 25.08.2026 passed by this Court. By

           the said order, Application was disposed of in terms of prayer clauses

           (a) and (b). Exigency of the Applicant was duly stated in paragraph

           No. 4 of the aforesaid order.

           3.       Mr. Ponda would persuade me to consider the communication

           received by the Applicant with regard to renewal of his passport. He



                                                                                       1 of 2
                                                                           1. CRI IA-1803-26.odt


           would submit that notwithstanding this Court having allowed the

           Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), according to the

           Department, if Court order does not specifically mention the short /

           full validity passport, Department would only issue the passport for

           one year in terms of the relevant provisions of Notification dated

           25.08.1993 read with MEA letter dated 10.10.2019 and the Passport

           Manual 2020.

           4.        I have considered the request made by Mr. Ponda on behalf of

           the Applicant. The requisite requirements have been specifically noted

           by me in paragraph No. 4 of the previous order while allowing the said

           Application.                 Granting the passport to the Applicant for one year

           would serve no purpose whatsoever. In that view of the matter, the

           request made by Mr. Ponda to direct the concerned appropriate

           Passport Office and Authority to issue / renew the passport of the

           Applicant for a period of ten years is allowed by this Court.

           5.        Order dated 25.08.2026 shall be read with along with a copy of

           this order and both the orders shall be read together for determination

           of Interim Application No. 1803 of 2026.                  It is clarified that the

           passport that shall be issued / renewed to the Applicant in accordance

           with law will be issued to him for a period of ten years.

           6.        With the above direction, praecipe is disposed.



Amberkar             Digitally signed
                     by RAVINDRA
                                                            [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
           MOHAN    AMBERKAR
           AMBERKAR Date:
                     2026.09.02
                     15:28:35 +0530
                                                                                         2 of 2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.