Bombay High Court
ANIL SHAMANDAS ASWANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court allowed the interim relief, directing the Regional Passport Authority to accept, process, and decide the passport renewal application without insisting on a NOC, and ordered the trial court to expedite any travel application.
Summary
Anil Shamandas Aswani, the applicant, filed an interim application in a writ petition seeking renewal of his passport (No. P7296373) to travel to Singapore for medical treatment. He argued that the requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a subordinate criminal court violated his constitutional right to obtain a passport. The court noted that the pending quashing petition did not bar granting interim relief and that the Regional Passport Office had not appeared to contest the application. Justice Milind N. Jadhav directed the passport authority to process the renewal without demanding an NOC and held that the discretion to issue the passport remains with the authority under the law. Additionally, the court ordered that if the renewed passport is obtained, the trial court must dispose of any travel application within one week. The interim application was therefore allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the court can direct the Regional Passport Authority to process a passport renewal without requiring a NOC from a subordinate criminal court.
- Whether such direction infringes upon the discretion vested in the passport authority under the applicable passport law.
Subjects
- passport renewal
- interim relief
- medical treatment abroad
- no objection certificate
- constitutional right
- writ petition
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
32.IA.2970.2026+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2970 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4923 OF 2025
Anil Shamandas Aswani Applicant
.. (Orig. Petitioner)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
.................…
Ms. Minal Chandnani (appearing through Video Conferencing) a/w.
Mr. Naresh Shamnani and Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, Advocates for
Applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Chandnani, learned Advocate for Applicant
appearing through Video Conferencing and Ms. Phad, learned APP for
Respondent No.1 – State.
2. After hearing the learned Advocate and learned APP on
24.08.2026, following order was passed:-
“1. Heard Mr. Chandnani, learned Advocate for Applicant and
Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
2. Interim Application seeks renewal of passport in view of
precursor condition required of minimum validity of six months to
travel to Singapore. The Applicant is also otherwise suffering from
certain medical ailment for which Applicant requires to go to Singapore
for treatment. Even otherwise, Petitioner’s quashing Petition No.4923
of 2025 is pending before this Court.
3. In so far as the relief in paragraph Nos.31(b) and (c) are
concerned, in my opinion there cannot be any impediment in allowing
1 of 3
32.IA.2970.2026+.doc
the same.
3. Today none appears for contesting Respondent No.2 i.e.
Regional Passport Office.
4. Ms. Chandnani informs that Application has been served
and she will file Affidavit-of-service. Copy of this order shall be served
afresh on Regional Passport Office. They are directed to remain
present. If they do not remain present, appropriate orders allowing the
Interim Application will be passed on the next adjourned date which
shall be noted by the Respondents.
5. Stand over to 01st September, 2026. To be placed under
the caption ‘First on Board’.”
4. Today, carrying on further Ms. Chandnani would persuade
me to consider grant of the aforesaid release relief. There can be no
impediment in allowing prayer clause (b) as it is a constitutional right
of the Applicant / Petitioner to possess and seek issuance of the
passport. In so far as re-issuance / renewal is concerned, the discretion
will be of the Passport Authority to issue the passport in accordance
with law. The application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)
which reads thus:-
“b. That this Hon’ble Court may please to issue a direction or
order thereby directing the Respondent No.2 – Regional
Passport Authority to forthwith accept, process, consider
and decide the Applicant’s application for re-issuance/
renewal of Passport bearing No. P7296373 without
insisting upon production of any NOC/permission from a
subordinate criminal Court”.
5. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, though it is in the
alternative, I direct that if the Applicant / Petitioner receives the
renewed Passport, and if the Applicant / Petitioner makes an
appropriate Application to the concerned Trial Court for travelling
2 of 3
32.IA.2970.2026+.doc
abroad for treatment of his medical condition, the learned Trial Court
shall dispose of the said Application as expeditiously as possible and
within a period of one week from the date of filing of such Application
before the Trial Court.
6. List the Writ Petition on 22nd September, 2026.
7. With the above directions, the Interim Application stands
allowed and disposed of.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.02
10:58:03 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…