OD-11 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/250/2026 RAJARAM GHOSAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO Date: 13th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Shounak Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Samanta, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Ld. ASG Mr. Arijit Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Kotha Sarkar, Adv. Mr. D. Shaw, Adv. …For Passport Authority 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the show cause notice dated 25th September, 2025 issued by the Passport Authority directing the petitioner to appear before the Passport Authority within twenty one days along with the show cause notice and passport. 2. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had a passport which was valid from 9th December, 2016 to 8th December, 2026. Before expiry of the earlier passport, the petitioner has applied for renewal of the passport on 2 Tatkal basis on 25th June, 2025. On the basis of the Tatkal application, the passport authorities have issued the passport to the petitioner which is valid from 1st July, 2025 to 30th June, 2035. 3. The petitioner submits that after receipt of show cause notice dated 25th September, 2025, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the Passport Authorities along with several judgments passed by different High Courts and as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As the authorities have not withdrawn the show cause notice issued to the petitioner accordingly the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 4. Learned ASG submits that the petitioner has obtained passport by way of Tatkal application. In the said application, the petitioner has given the declaration that he does not belong to the ineligible categories and he has also agreed that if he found to be belonging to the ineligible categories at later stage, his application may be processed as per the guidelines. He submits that after the issuance of the passport to the petitioner on Tatkal basis, the Passport Authorities have received police verification report wherefrom it was found that a criminal case in Arambagh Police Station being the Case No. 235 of 2020, dated 26th June, 2020 Under Sections 27A/28A/22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is pending against the petitioner. 5. He submitted that when the passport authorities have received the said verification report from the police, the authorities found that the petitioner has obtained the Tatkal passport by suppressing the fact with 3 regard to the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. Thus, the notice under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 has been issued. Learned ASG submits that though the petitioner has enclosed the alleged reply to the notice dated 25th September, 2025, but the annexure does not reflect that the same was acknowledged by the passport authorities. He has submitted an instruction from the authorities, where from it revealed that the authorities denied with regard to receipt of the alleged reply. 6. Learned ASG has referred the application filed by the petitioner for grant of passport on Tatkal basis and has referred the declaration of the applicant. The declaration reads as follows: “Declaration by the applicant: I understand and agree that I have applied under the Tatkaal scheme, and my application may be put on hold in case of documentary insufficiency. In such a case, I agree to submit the required number of documents at a later date given by the Office. I also state that I do not belong to the ineligible categories. I agree that if I am found to be belonging to the ineligible categories at a later stage, my application may be processed as per the guidelines for the said category. I agree that the decision of GO/APO/RPO shall be considered final.” 7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 8. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Versus Union of India and another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238 and submits that the passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing the trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal 4 court, which can grant or withhold the permission, impose conditions, insist on undertaking, or refuse leave altogether. 9. He submits that in the present case, there is no condition imposed by the criminal court for leaving India and as such the petitioner has applied for the passport. He further submits that before issuance of the present passport, on several occasions, earlier, the petitioner has visited several foreign countries and there was no objection from the criminal court. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained the passport on Tatkal basis. The passport issued on Tatkal basis was only on the basis of the declaration given by the petitioner, subject to receipt of the verification by the police authority. 11. The petitioner in the application for grant of passport on Tatkal basis submitted the declaration and on the basis of declaration, the passport authority has issued passport. After issuance of passport, the authorities have received police verification report wherein it is found that the petitioner is facing trial before the Criminal Court. 12. The authorities have issued the notice to the petitioner for appearing before the passport authority along with the passport. Section 10(3)(A) of the Act of 1967 provides that if the passport authority is satisfied that the holder of the passport or the travel document is in wrongful possession, thereof, the authorities have the right to impound or revocation of the passport or the travel document. 13. It is the specific allegation that the petitioner has obtained passport on the basis of Tatkal application giving the declaration that he did not 5 belong to ineligible categories and he has also given the declaration that at a later stage, his application may be processed for the guidelines for the sub-category and he agrees that the decision of the Government of India, AP/RPO shall be considered. 14. The authority after issuance of the passport to the petitioner, found that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 15. Section 6 of the Act of 1967 provides for refusal of passports or travel documents but by the notification issued by the Government of India being Notification GSR 570 (E) dated 25th August, 1993, exempted the person who is having a criminal cases pending before the criminal Court, subject to obtain order from the Criminal Court. In the present case, the petitioner has not obtained any order from the criminal Court. But in paragraph 11 of the present writ application, it is mentioned that the petitioner has filed an application, before the criminal Court for grant of no objection for renewal of the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. 16. Considering the said averments made in the said application, this Court finds that the petitioner had the knowledge that the petitioner cannot obtain passport without the order from the criminal Court but has obtained the passport from the authority on Tatkal application by suppressing the fact. 17. This Court did not find any illegality in issuing show cause notice to the petitioner dated 25th September, 2025. The writ petition is dismissed. 6 The petitioner is directed immediately to appear before the Passport Authority within a period of one week from date. If the petitioner appears before the passport authority within a week from date and submit show cause reply, the passport authority shall pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter in accordance with law. (KRISHNA RAO, J.) JM/S.De/mg