C/SCA/2522/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2522 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== VINAYGIRI KALUGIRI GOSWAMI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/03/2026 JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for nal hearing today. 2. Present petition is led by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of The Passport Act seeking following reliefs: “A. Admit this application; B. Allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent no.2 passport authorities to issue C/SCA/2522/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 new passport to the present petitioner in the interest of justice. C. Grant such other and further relief(s) in the fact and circumstances of the present petition as deemed !t in the interest of justice;” 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the an FIR being No. 11206038230223/2023 was registered at Langhnaj Police Station against the petitioner for o2ence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4378/2023, wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 25.08.2025 convicted the petitioner for the o2ence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC. Against this, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 504/2025, wherein the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2025 partly allowed the appeal and extended the benet of probation to the petitioner. That, the petitioner had applied for a new passport by way of online application on the website of the respondent no.2 authority. That, the respondent no.2 authority has not issued a new passport to the present petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case/proceeding and refused to issue new passport, without the order of the concerned Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials available on record. 5. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that passport authority has erred in not considering the fact that pendency of C/SCA/2522/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 criminal proceeding is no ground to refuse passport and moreover, no case or appeal is pending against the petitioner. He has submitted that a false case has been led against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was convicted and appeal led against the conviction order is disposed of by giving benet u/s 4 of the Probation of O2ender Act and hence, no case is pending against the petitioner. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Chaudhari has urged that the present petition is required to be allowed. 6. Mr. Bhate, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the passport authorities will issue the passport as per the rules and the prevalent notications. He submits that, however, there is no restriction on this Court to issue a direction for issuance of the passport for a certain period of validity as per the rules. He therefore, submits that appropriate directions be passed accordingly. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have considered the facts of the petition. It is not disputed that the FIR has been led against the present petitioner which was registered under Sections 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 being FIR No. 11206038230223/2023 led before the Langhnaj Police Station which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4378/2023 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the o2ence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC. It is stated and submitted that against the said judgment and order, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 504/2025, wherein the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2025 partly allowed the appeal and extended the benet of probation C/SCA/2522/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 to the petitioner and therefore, there is no criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The relevant operative part of the said impugned judgment and order reads as under: “Appellants/accused are hereby directed to execute bond of Rs.15,000/- as per Section 4 of the Probation of O/ender Act read with Section 361 of Cr.P.C which surety of like amount for a period of 2 years before the Ld. Trial Court, failing which Ld. Trial Court is ordered to issue non bailable warrant of arrest against the appellants directing them to receive sentence.” It appears that the petitioner had applied for a new passport before the respondent no.2 authority however, the respondent no.2 authority refused to issue a new passport to the present petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case/proceeding. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and averments made in the petition, the matter deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall prefer a fresh application before the respondent – passport authority along with the relevant facts and documentary evidences. The petitioner is permitted to le the application before the respondent - passport authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and the respondent – passport authority shall decide the same in C/SCA/2522/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application. If the petitioner is found to be eligible, the respondent – passport authority shall issue a fresh passport to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 18:05:24