14.10.2026 Sl. No.01. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Port Blair, Appellate Side CRR/62/2026 R Chidambaram Vs. The State Mr. Gopal Binnu Kumar …for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Karmakar …for the State An FIR under Section 3/4/5/6 of the Explosive Substance Act read with Section 120B of the IPC was initiated against the petitioner, being the owner of a quarry. The allegation levelled against the petitioner interalia is that the petitioner along with other quarry owners entangled in bringing explosive for extracting quarry permit without any valid licence. The said case was initiated in the year 2012 and subsequently more than 78 witnesses were examined and the case is prolonging day by day. Finding no other alternative in the year 2019, the petitioner filed an application before this Court being CRR 15 of 2019 for expeditious disposal of the case and this Court directed the learned trial Court to dispose of the same within a year. However, the said order has not been complied as yet. During the pendency of the instant case during the year 2021, the passport of the petitioner was about to expire and as such the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial 2 Court for issuance of no objection for obtaining passport on 21.09.2021. The learned Trial Court accorded no objection for grant of passport to the petitioner for a period of 5 years. The petitioner states that from last more than 2 years the case is posted for examination of the rest of the Investigating Officer and on every occasion the prosecution fails to produce the witnesses. Since the earlier passport issued for a period of 5 years in terms of the aforesaid order expired on 05.01.2027, the petitioner filed an application on 05.08.2026 before the Trial Court praying for no objection from the learned Trial Court for renewing the passport of the petitioner from the Passport Authority. By the impugned order, learned Court below disposed of the said prayer observing that the Court has no objection for obtaining of passport by the accused/petitioner R. Chidambaram for a period as per the discretion of the Passport Authority, provided he furnishes all the requisite documents as per their requirement. Being aggrieved by that order, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2025 INSC 1476) (para 20 & 22). He further submits that the same Court on an earlier occasion while disposing a petition filed by an accused placed reliance upon the said judgment of Mahesh Kumar (supra) and observed that the Court has got no objection for obtaining of passport by the accused of the said case for a period of 10 years subject to compliance of all other conditions and formalities as mentioned in the Passport Act. 3 Therefore, the order impugned is unjustified and bereft of any reason and, therefore, liable to be interfered. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the trial is almost on the verge of completion and, therefore, the Trial Court was justified in leaving the discretion upon the Passport Authority regarding the period for which it is to be granted. Such order does not call for interference by this Court. In reply, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his counterpart before the Court below did not raise objection in respect of present prayer made by the petitioner as clearly reflected from the order impugned. Having considered submissions made on behalf of both the parties, it appears that in the said judgment of Mahesh Kumar Agarwala (supra) Supreme Court reiterated that any restriction if imposed in such cases must be fair, just and reasonable and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose. In the present case, court below while passed the impugned order did not record any reason whatsoever as to why he left the period to the discretion of the passport authority and had made an attempt to pass the buck to said authority. In the same judgment Apex court has discouraged speculative apprehension that the petitioner might misuse the passport. In such view of the matter, the order impugned is hereby interfered only with a limited extent that the petitioner’s prayer for granting no-objection for obtaining of the passport for a maximum period of 10 years is allowed subject to compliance of all other 4 conditions and formalities as mentioned in the Passport Act. the other conditions imposed by the court below for granting no objection are not interfered. The application being CRR 62 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )