IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 9259 of 2025 Decided on 25th June 2025 Vikramaditya Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Shrishti Chauhan and Ganesh Barowalia, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent- Union of India. Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- I. “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) to the extent that it conditions passport renewal on furnishing “Court permission to depart from India. 2 II. Direct respondent No.2 to process the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport (Annexure P-3) without insisting upon “Court permission,” strictly in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967 and Passports Rules, 1980, and in line eith the judgments in Kuldeep Singh v. UOI & Ors. (CWP No.14561/2025) and Narendra K. Ambwani v. UOI, (2014) 35 RCR 769. III. Grant interim relief by directing Respondent No.2 to issue a valid passport to the Petitioner within a stipulated timeframe, subject to conditions, as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that respondent No.4 has got no role to play in the petition in the light of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition and has no objection if relief prayed for is granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner is only for the renewal of the passport which has expired on 17.03.2025 and for the purpose of renewal thereof, the petitioner has already approached the concerned Authority. 4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has drawn the attention of the Court to the short affidavit filed on behalf of the Passport Officer and submitted that there is a 3 notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, copy whereof is appended with the short affidavit and it is in the light of this notification the petitioner has been called upon to do the needful. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and leaned Deputy Solicitor General of India. 6. The prayer of the petitioner is only for the renewal of the passport which was duly issued in favour of the petitioner as per law and which has since expired on 17.03.2025. The petitioner has already applied for the renewal thereof in terms of Annexure P-3 dated 08.05.2025. The petitioner has also appended with the petition the copy of the Annexure P-4, which is the clarification sought from the petitioner by the Passport Authority, dated 26.05.2025, which reads as under:- “To, Vikramaditya Singh, S/o Virbhadra Singh, Holly Lodge, Jakhu, Shimla, 171001, Himachal Pradesh, India. Sub: Clarification required regarding issuance of Passport facilities to Shri Vikramaditya Singh. Dear Sir, This is in reference to receipt of an adverse Police Verification Report corresponding to our application for passport issue, with file number SM1075016559525 4 dated 09.05.2025. As per police verification report-Case FIR No.279 year 2020 dated 27.12.2020 under Sections 143, 188, 269 and 270 IPC PS Sadar which is under trial in the learned court of CJM Shimla. You are therefore, called upon to provide a suitable explanation within 21 days alongwith necessary Court Permission to depart from India as per GSR 570(E) and if the case has been closed, then, submit the certified copy of Court judgment. Please be informed that in case of non-response within the specified period, or a non-satisfactory response, you will be denied the passport against this or any future application. Please submit the required documents/clarification to the Superintendent Enquiry at the Regional Passport Office. Yours Sincerely, For Regional Passport Office, Shimla.” 7. Having perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the non-renewal of the passport of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure P-4, dated 26.05.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner has approached the Authority for the renewal of the passport after its expiry. It is not the case of the respondents that the passport which was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 was suspended by invoking the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. In other words, the passport was issued validly and remained duly granted till its expiry, which was a normal 5 process as the period for which the passport was issued expired on the concerned date. 8. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India could not point out from the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 as to what was the impediment in the renewal of the passport of the petitioner. 9. The reliance placed upon communication dated 26.05.2025 to justify its act placed by the respondents is also not sustainable. All that is mentioned in this communication is that as per Police Verification Report, in case FIR No279 of 2020, dated 2712.2020, under Sections 143, 188, 269 and 270 of the IPC, was registered at Police Station Sadar, which is under trial in the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Shimla and on these basis the petitioner has been called upon to provide a suitable explanation within 21 days alongwith necessary Court permission to “depart from India”. It is not understood as to why for the purpose only the renewal of the passport, this is being demanded by the Authority. It could not be substantiated before the Court by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that the same was mandatory for the 6 purpose of the “renewal of the passport”. 10. Similarly, the reliance placed upon the notification of the Ministry of External Affairs dated 25.08.1993 also does not comes to the rescue of the respondents. This notification reads as under:- “In exercise of the powers of conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and is suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India and who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India from the operation of the provisions of Clause(f) of sub-section(2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) The passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued. (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) If no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year; (iii) If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and 7 does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order. (b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified.; (c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.” This notification would be attracted in case the circumstances mentioned therein arise, whereas, in the facts of this case, the circumstances mentioned therein have not yet arisen. Herein, the prayer of the petitioner is only of renewal of the passport. It is not coupled with his request for permission to travel abroad as of today. 11. In the light of said observations, this writ petition is disposed of by holding the act of the non-renewal of the passport by the respondents as bad in law. Annexure P-4 dated 8 26.05.2025 is also quashed and set aside and direction is issued to the Passport Officer to renew the passport of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 10 days from today. However, it is clarified that as far as the travelling abroad on the basis of the passport which shall be renewed by the Passport Officer is concerned that of course would be subject to conditions, if any, imposed by any Court upon the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 25, 2025 (Vinod)