1 2025:CGHC:48276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2753 of 2025 1 - Hasan Imam S/o Ali Imam Aged About 45 Years R/o House Number 23/49, G.K. Township, Siltara, Bindrawangarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Regional Passport Officer Raipur, 1st Floor, Commercial Complex, Sector-4, Pandit Deen Dayal Uppadhyay Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amir Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anurag Tripathi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/09/2025 Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the only proceeding pending is a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is of purely civil and miscellaneous nature and cannot be termed as a criminal proceeding. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.22 11:18:39 +0530 2 2. It is further contended that the petitioner is working Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and is the sole breadwinner of his family, regularly sending money for the survival of his old aged father. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the Passport Office, Raipur be stayed and direction be issued to permit the petitioner to continue his; employment abroad. 3. Counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that the Passports Act, 1967 provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances. Section 14 of the Act, specifically provides a appeal against the order of Passport Authority, to be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Authority. 4. It is argued that since an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the settled principle that when a statute provides a remedy by way of appeal, this Court cannot ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to proceedings before the Passport Authority. Section 14 of the Passports Act, 1967, clearly provides for an appeal against the order of the Passport Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such order. 6. In view of the availability of the said alternative and efficacious remedy, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the 3 present writ petition directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 14 of the Passports Act, 1967, within the time prescribed in law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge