Bombay High Court
RASHMI ASHOK SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that there is no impediment and allowed the interim application in favour of the Applicant.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard an interim application filed by Rashmi Ashok Shah (Applicant) in Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2019 seeking renewal of her passport. The Applicant was represented by Ms. Shefali Bhasin and Mr. Mohnish Bhasin, while the State of Maharashtra was represented by Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad and Respondent No. 12 (the Regional Passport Office) by Mr. Aayush Kedia and Mr. Deepam Upadhyay. The Court examined the affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of the Regional Passport Office and found no legal impediment to allowing the interim relief sought. Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application with respect to prayer clauses (a) and (b) and granted the Applicant liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for clause (c). No further orders were deemed necessary and the interim application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether there is any legal impediment to granting the interim relief sought by the Applicant.
- Whether the Applicant is entitled to renewal of her passport under the applicable law.
- Whether the Applicant may approach the concerned Magistrate for further relief.
Subjects
- passport renewal
- interim relief
- writ petition
- high court
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
25. CRI IA-2296-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2296 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4055 OF 2019
Rashmi Ashok Shah Applicant
.. (Org. Petitioner No. 9)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Shefali Bhasin a/w Mr. Mohnish Bhasin, Advocates for
Applicant
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for State
Mr. Aayush Kedia a/w Deepam Upadhyay, Advocates for
Respondent No. 12
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Ms. Bhasin, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Phad,
learned APP for State and Mr. Kedia, learned Advocate for Respondent
No. 12.
2. Prima facie, there can be no impediment in allowing the present
Application. Affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 12 filed by
Senior Superintendent, Regional Passport Office(RPO) is taken on
record. If the Applicant is entitled to renew the passport, the same is
directed to be renewed in accordance with law. No further orders are
required to be passed in the present Applicant.
1 of 2
25. CRI IA-2296-26.odt
3. Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b). As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, liberty to the Applicant
to apply to the concerned Magistrate.
4. Interim Application is disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.08.27
15:03:35
+0530
2 of 2
Checking your session…