1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPA/367/2026 Shri A. Mohammed Ali Vs. The Regional Passport Officer Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi … for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar … for the respondent July 28, 2026 [AKB] Item No.2 1. The writ petitioner and the respondent authority are represented by their respective counsel. 2. The subject matter of the instant writ petitioner is the Memo dated 03.09.2025 as issued by the respondent authority whereby and whereunder the respondent authority while considering the application of the writ petitioner for renewal of his Passport has sought for the following documents namely: “(1) Certified copy of the permission of the Ld’ Trial Court allowing the applicant to depart from the Country and also mentioning the validity period of the passport. In case no period is specified in the Court Order OR permission to travel aboard is provided for a period less than 01 year without mentioning the validity of the passport, the passport will be issued for a period of 01 year. Copy is enclosed at Annexure-I. Due care may be taken while seeking above such permission, that there is no such provision for seeking permission/NOC from the court concerned for issuance of passport; instead it is permission to depart from India. In case of non- production of such permission, your aforesaid passport application will be subject to refusal u/s 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. (2) An undertaking as per the provision of aforesaid Notification GSR 570 (E) dated 25/08/1993. Copy is enclosed at Annexure-II.” 3. In this writ petition, the subsequent email dated 12.12.2025, a copy of which has been annexed at the page No. 37 of the instant writ petition is also impugned. 2 4. At the time of hearing Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws the attention of this Court to page No. 18 and 19 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the passport as stood in the name of the writ petitioner. It is submitted that since validity of the said passport expired due to nonrenewal within the period of its validity, the writ petitioner approached the respondent authorities through online for renewal of his earlier passport, a copy of which has been annexed at page No. 20 to 22 of the instant writ petition. 5. In his next limb of submission Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar drawing the attention to the page No. 25 of the instant writ petition submits before this Court that soon thereafter by issuance of a Memo dated 24.01.2025 the respondent authority intimated the writ petitioner regarding pendency of a criminal case being Aberdeen PS Case No. 277 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 against him. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the said PS case and soon after receipt of the Memo dated 24.01.2021 the writ petitioner approached the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing an application seeking ‘No Objection’ regarding renewal of the passport and the said jurisdictional Magistrate by its order dated 17.01.2025 in GR Case No. 993 of 2023 passed a favourable order stating that the said Court has ‘No Objection’ in the event the Passport is granted to the present writ petitioner for a period of five years. To substantiate 3 his contention Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar has placed a printout from the e-Court India Service which shows that GR Case No. 993 of 2023 arose out of the aforementioned PS Case. 7. It is submitted that the certified copy of the said order dated 17.01.2025 as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair was submitted with the respondent authorities and despite that the respondent authority issued the impugned memo dated 03.09.2025 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner was directed to produce orders from the Jurisdictional Magistrate permitting the writ petitioner to depart from India in terms of the provisions of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar that the respondent authority while issuing the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025 has failed to visualize the true meaning and purport of the order dated 17.01.2025 as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair in GR case No. 993 of 2023 in its proper perspective and thus misdirected himself in issuing the impugned Memo which practically tantamount to refusal to renew the passport as prayed for by the writ petitioner. 9. To substantiate his contention Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar places his reliance upon the judgement as passed in the case of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025 (Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and another) as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.12.2025. It is submitted by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar that in the case of Mahesh Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court had occasioned to consider the provisions of Section 6 of 4 the Passport Act vis-à-vis the relevant Office Memo as issued by the Passport authorities and came to a finding that any ‘No Objection’ certificate and permission from the criminal court read with the applicant’s undertaking may override an adverse police report with reasons recorded by Passport Officer. It is thus submitted by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar that a ‘No Objection’ issued by jurisdictional Magistrate ought to have been considered by the respondent authority as a permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate Court which the respondent authority has failed to visualize and thus the impugned Memo may be set aside and appropriate writ/writs may be issued to the respondent authority to renew the Passport as prayed for. 10. Per contra, Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authority has filed a instruction dated 27.07.2026 as submitted by the Deputy Passport Officer of the respondent authority. It is submitted that from the instruction it would reveal that the respondent authorities have noticed the following:- “(a) change of applicant/petitioner’s name in passport, (b) change of name of the deceased father of the applicant/petitioner (c) adverse police report citing pending case against the petitioner and court order to overrule the adverse PVR under the statutory scheme of GSR 570 (E).” 11. It is thus submitted by Mr. Sivabalan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent that on account of change of the writ petitioner’s name in the renewal application, change of the name of the deceased father of the applicant and on account of adverse police report the respondent authority are absolutely justified in issuing the impugned Memo. 5 12. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given its due consideration over the submission of the learned advocates for the contending party. 13. On perusal of the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025 it reveals that the respondent authority practically declined to grant renewal of the Passport to the writ petitioner on the ground that the learned Trial Court does not allow the writ petitioner to depart from the Country and also did not mention regarding the validity period of the passport. In such impugned Memo, the objections as highlighted in the instruction dated 27.07.2026 have not been mentioned. In view of such this Court proposes to dispose of the instant writ petition in the light of the contents of the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025. 14. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it appears that the writ petitioner after getting knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case from the respondent authority approached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court in the said pending criminal case with a prayer for grant of ‘No Objection’ for renewal of the Passport. Sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair allowed such prayer of the writ petitioner and thus granted ‘No Objection’ with regard to issuance of the Passport to the writ petitioner for a period not more than five years. 15. Keeping in mind the spirit of the said order dated 17.01.2025 as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 6 Port Blair in GR Case No. 993 of 2023 if I look to the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025, it appears that the respondent authority did not consider such ‘No Objection’ as a permission of the learned Trial Court allowing the applicant to depart from the Country. 16. In considered view of this Court before the respondent authority the writ petitioner has simply prayed for renewal of his old Passport which expired due to non renewal within its validity period. 17. On perusal of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Kumar (supra) it appears to this Court that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of the Section 6 of the Passport Act vis-à-vis the relevant OM dated 10.10.2019 practically come to a finding that the No Objection Certificate issued by a criminal Court may be treated as a permission granted by the self same Court as would be evident from para 7.9 of the said judgement. It further appears to this Court that in paragraph 20 and 22 of the said judgement of Mahesh Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that denial of the renewal of a Passport cannot operate in vacuum and the right to travel abroad and right to Passport are the facets of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. On perusal of the recent instruction date 27.07.2026 as submitted on behalf of the respondent today before this Court, it would reveal that the respondent authority have taken some additional points which are not in the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025. In view of such this Court does not intend to deal 7 with the facets of instructions dated 27.07.2026 in this writ petition. 19. Coming to the factual aspects of this Court, it thus appears to this Court that the respondent authority has miserably failed to construe the true meaning and purport of the ‘No Objection’ issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate which ought to have been considered by respondent authority as permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to get his Passport renewed subject to fulfillment of other conditions in terms of the Passport Act and the rules made thereunder. 20. In view of such this Court while disposing the instant writ petition set aside the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025 and the impugned e-mail dated 12.12.2025. 21. This Court further directs the respondent authority to treat the order dated 17.01.2025 as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Port Blair in GR Case No. 993/2023 as a permission to obtain renewal of the passport as prayed for by the writ petitioner before the respondent authority and the respondent authority is thus directed to renew the Passport of the writ petitioner without insisting any further permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, however, subject to compliance of all other conditions and formalities as mentioned in the Passport Act and the Rules thereunder by the writ petitioner, within 30 (thirty) working days from the date of communication of the server copy of this order. 22. Before parting with it is further made clear that in the event the respondent authority renews the Passport of the writ 8 petitioner subject to fulfillment of the conditions as mentioned (supra) and without insisting for any further permission from the learned Trial Court, the writ petitioner shall not leave the Country of India except with the leave of Jurisdictional Court before which aforementioned criminal case is pending. 23. The learned advocate for the respondent authority is directed to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent authority forthwith who is directed to act on the server copy of this order 24. With the aforementioned observation the instant writ petition is thus disposed of. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)