Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vikramjeet Singh vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:12018) on 13 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23342/2025
Vikramjeet Singh S/o Shri Vinod Swami, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 12, Village Post Ramgarh, 16Dpn, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of External
Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Regional Passport Officer, (Jaipur), J-14, Jhalana
Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur-Raj. 302051.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar.
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
13/03/2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 07.12.2021, passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the case of Hardik Shah Vs. Union of India & Ors. :
Writ Petition No.5692 of 2020 (Indore). The said order is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“1. The petitioner, a travel blogger and consultant
has visited this Court for the second time against
the action of Regional Passport Authority, Bhopal in
not issuing a regular passport for a period of ten
years and on the contrary impounding his passport
in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Draped in brevity, the case of the petitioner is
that being a travel blogger by profession, the
petitioner is required to travel around the globe.
The passport was initially issued to the petitioner on(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (2 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]05.09.1997. The said passport was renewed for a
period of ten years on 02.06.2014 and a new
passport valid till 01.06.2024 was issued.
3. There was a matrimonial discord of petitioner
with his wife who allegedly left matrimonial house
on 12.09.2016. The petitioner’s wife took away the
old passport of the petitioner with her. Petitioner
filed the police complain regarding said action of his
wife on 10.10.2016. Petitioner’s wife also filed an
F.I.R. in Crime No.729/2016 against the petitioner
and his family members on 03.11.2016 alleging
demand of dowry etc. The petitioner filed a petition
for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act which is still sub judice. The petitioner got bail
in the said crime number on 26.04.2017. No
condition was imposed in the bail order restricting
the petitioner to travel abroad.
4. In turn, on 31.07.2017, the petitioner made
an application for re-issuance of passport because
his earlier passport was taken away by his wife. The
petitioner also filed a petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bearing
No.8168/2019 before Allahabad High Court. On
08.03.2019, the High Court protected the petitioner,
referred the matter to mediation and directed that
no coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner.
5. Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that petitioner’s wife sent an
email to the Passport Authority alleging that
petitioner was not attending criminal proceedings,
and therefore, action may be taken under Section
10 of the Passport Act, 1967. Certain documents
were sent to the Passport Authority through email
by the wife of the petitioner. The Passport Authority
directed the wife to remain present for verification
of documents annexed with the complain. She did
not turn up and all her complain sent through email
were entertained and treated as gospel truth.
6. A show-casue notice under Section 10(3)(h)
of the said Act was issued to petitioner on
07.06.2019 as to why his passport should not be
impounded. Pausing here for a moment, Shri
Maheshwari urged that notice was confined for
impounding of passport and not for its revocation.
The petitioner while submitting a preliminary reply(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (3 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]on 27.06.2019 requested the authority to supply
copy of complain and supporting documents. When
petitioner’s said request went in vain, he filed W.P.
No.18354/2019 before this Court seeking supply of
said documents and for other reliefs. Shri
Maheshwari submits that said writ petition was
disposed of on 04.09.2019 (Annexure-P/9) and in
view of this order, respondent No.2 was required to
provide necessary document to the petitioner and to
conclude the hearing expeditiously.
7. In turn, Shri Maheshwari submits that the
petitioner approached respondent No.2 on
09.09.2019 and prayed for compliance of the order
of this Court. The passport authority directed the
petitioner to surrender the passport failing which,
the passport will be cancelled. The passport was
impounded without affording any hearing or
opportunity. The document of Passport Office,
Bhopal (page – 62) is relied upon to show that
passport was in fact impounded on 09.09.2019.
Para – 5.13 of the petition was relied upon to
contend that the specific allegations / averments
made in this regard in the petition have not been
denied. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the
contention of the petitioner.
8. Furthermore, it is submitted that on
09.09.2019 after impounding the passport, the
complain and supporting documents of wife were
supplied to the petitioner on 01.11.2019 (Annexure-
P/13). It was informed that as per Gazette
Notification dated 25.08.1993, passport facilities
can be granted to the petitioner only after the
submission of permission from the concerned Court.
9. Criticizing the action of impounding and
passing the impugned order dated 01.11.2019,
learned counsel for the petitioner raised four fold
submissions :
(i) the impugned action of impounding runs
contrary to the order of this Court passed in W.P.
No.18354/2019. No opportunity of hearing was
given to the petitioner before impounding the
passport.
(ii) the passport was impounded without there
being any justification which runs contrary to the
settled legal position.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (4 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]
(iii) the gazette notification aforesaid cannot
deprive the petitioner from getting his passport
renewed for a period of ten years.
(iv) the impugned action / order of
respondents hits right of livelihood of petitioner, a
travel blogger flowing from Article 21 of the
Constitution.
10. In support of aforesaid points, Shri
Maheshwari placed reliance on Maneka Gandhi v/s
Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248,
Rajesh Sharma & Others v/s State of U.P. & Others
reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472, Navin Kumar
Sonkar v/s Union of India & Others reported in ILR
2018 MP 677, Mohd. Farid v/s Union of India &
Others (Writ No.59959/2016), Sanjay Gupta v/s
Union of India & Others (W.P. No.2390/2015), Neera
Chandra v/s Union of India (W.P. No.27307/2019),
Daler v/s Union of India & Others (W.P.
No.12143/2015), Suresh Nanda v/s CBI reported in
(2008) 3 SCC 674, Manish Kumar Mittal v/s Chief
Passport Officer & Another reported in 2013 SCC
OnLine Del. 3007, Narendra K Ambwwani v/s Union
of India (W.P. No.361/2014) and Sampit Nitin
Ranjani v/s Union of India & Others (W.P.
No.12784/2015).
11. Per contra, Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned
Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents
supported the impugned order. He placed reliance
on certain paragraphs of the reply. The bone of
contention of Shri Joshi is that in the teeth of
Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 (Annexure-R/
1), the petitioner’s passport can be issued for a
period of one year only. Pending a criminal case,
question of issuance or renewal of passport for a
period of ten year does not arise. The respondents
have acted in accordance with the said gazette
notification.
12. No other point is pressed by learned counsel
for the parties.
13. I have heard the parties at length and
perused the record.
14. In previous round, this Court passed following
order:-
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (5 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]“W.P. No.18354/2019
Hardik Shah v/s Union of India & ors.
Indore 04.09.2019 Shri Prateek Maheshwari,
learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2.The petitioner has filed the present
petition being aggrieved by the show-cause notice
issued by respondent No.2.
According to the petitioner matrimonial dispute with
the wife is going on and in order to pressurize the
petitioner, the wife has made a complaint to the
Passport Authorities for impounding the passport of
the petitioner. Though the petitioner has appeared
and submitted a brief reply but according to him,
the copy of complaint and the documents have not
been provided to him.
He has made an application for supply of the
documents.
Ms. Ishita Agrawal, learned Counsel for the
respondent submits that she will instruct the
respondent No.2 for providing necessary documents
to the petitioner and to conclude the hearing
expeditiously.
In view of above, the petition is disposed of.
”
[Emphasis Supplied]
In view of this order, the respondents were certainly
required to furnish necessary documents and
complain of petitioner’s wife to the petitioner. It
goes without saying that an effective and
meaningful hearing can take place only after such
document and complain are furnished to the
petitioner.
The petitioner categorically pleaded in para – 5.13
of the petition that instead of hearing the petitioner
and supplying the documents, the respondent No.2
chose to demand passport of the petitioner and
impounded the passport without any hearing and
without passing any order on the same day i.e.
09.09.2019. The respondents have filed a sketchy
reply.
No parawise reply is filed. There is no iota of denial
of these pleadings.
15. In Naseem Bano v/s The State of U.P. &
Others reported in 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 46, the
Apex Court held that if specific pleadings of petition
are not denied by the respondents while filing reply,
the averments can be treated to be admitted. Thus,
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (6 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]
I find substantial force in the argument of Shri
Maheshwari that the passport was impounded on
09.09.2019 before furnishing the documents and
without affording any opportunity of hearing.
16. In Maneka Gandhi (supra), the Apex Court
held that fair opportunity of being heard must be
given following immediately the order impounding
passport in order to satisfy the mandate of natural
justice. Importantly, no post decisional hearing is
also provided to the petitioner in the instant case.
17. In Rajesh Sharma (supra), it was ruled for
NRIs that in cases involving offence under Section
498 of the Indian Penal Code, impounding of
passport or issuing of red corner notice should not
be a routine. The said exercise can be done if the
Investigating Officer is satisfied that the arrest is
mandatory and the accused is absconding in order
to disturb the routine legal proceedings. This is not
the case of the respondents that pursuant to any
information given by investigating authority, the
passport was impounded so that petitioner cannot
abscond from legal proceedings. Thus, on this
account, the impugned action cannot be
countenanced.
18. The principal seat in Navin Kumar Sonkar
(supra) opined that mere pendency of criminal case
cannot be a ground to initiate action by the
passport officer. The pendency alone can also not be
a ground for impounding
the passport. There is a need of application of mind
by passport officer regarding the nature of the
criminal case. In Manish Kumar Mittal (supra) the
same principle was followed and it is expected that
passport officer will apply mind while taking
decision regarding impounding/revocation of
passport. The Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Farid
(supra) expected that passport authority will apply
the principle of objective consideration relating to
pendency of criminal case etc. In Daler (supra) the
Punjab and Haryana High Court opined that since
criminal court has not taken cognizance and charge
has not been framed, the passport authority should
re-issue the passport to the petitioner if there exists
no other legal impediment. In Neera Chandra
(supra), the competent criminal court in which
matter was pending granted permission for issuance
of passport and the Regional Passport Officer was
directed to reconsider the decision of impounding
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (7 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]
the passport of the petitioner without taking note of
the pendency of a criminal case.
19. So far as the Gazette Notification dated
25.09.1993 is concerned, suffice it to say that this
aspect was also dealt with in great detail by
Bombay High Court. Relevant portion of judgment
of Roshan Lawrence Menezes v/s Union of India &
Others (Writ Petition (Lodging) No.699/2020) reads
as under:-
“5. The Central Government has issued a
notification purportedly under Section 22 of the Act,
being G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993,
exempting citizens of India against whom
proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by them are pending before a
Criminal Court in India and who produce orders
from the concerned court permitting them to depart
from India, from the operation of Clause (f) of Sub-
section (2) of Section 6 of the Act subject to the
conditions specified in the notification. The
conditions inter alia require issuance of passport to
such citizens for the period specified in the order of
the court referred to above, if the court specifies
such period. Alternatively, if there is no period
prescribed either for issuance of the passport or for
travel abroad in such order, the passport may be
issued for a period of one year.
6. There are at least two separate judgments and
orders of our court, making it clear that under the
Rules framed under the Act, particularly Rule 12, a
passport other than for a child aged less than 15
years should be issued for a minimum period of 10
years. The first of these two judgments was
delivered in Writ Petition No.361 of 2014 in the case
of Narendra K. Ambwani vs. Union of India on 13
March 2014. By this judgment, our court issued
directions inter alia requiring the Passport Office in
all cases where the Magistrate’s court directs
renewal of passport under the Rules, the Passports
Rules, 1980 would apply and passports other than
for a child aged less than 15 years would have to be
renewed for a period of at least 10 years. If, on the
other hand, the Magistrate were to pass an order
making a reference to the Notification of 25 August
1993 (G.S.R. 570(E)), the passport would be
renewed only for such period as the Magistrate may
specify in his order or otherwise as specified in the
notification, namely, one year. The second judgment
is the case of Samip Nitin Ranjani vs. Union of India
(Writ Petition No.12784/2016) where the Division(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (8 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]Bench of our court (per V.M. Kanade and Nutan D.
Sardessai, JJ.), by its order dated 30 November
2016, observed that the Union Government was
duty bound to follow the directions/guidelines in the
earlier judgment and renew passports for a period
of 10 years in all cases where the Magistrates have
allowed applications for renewal as per the
Passports Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Our
Court appears to have essentially proceeded on the
footing that by allowing renewal as per the Act and
Rules framed thereunder, the criminal court, in
efect, allows renewal of passport for a period of 10
years (Rule 12 of Passports Rules, 1980). If, on the
other hand, the Magistrate, whilst issuing his NOC,
issues a direction that the passport should be issued
or renewed as per the notification of 25 August
1993 and the order does not specify any particular
period for such issuance or renewal, the passport is,
in default, liable to be renewed for a period of one
year. This being the law declared by our court, the
Respondents in the present case could not have
renewed the Petitioner’s passport for any period
less than 10 years. In the present case, the
Magistrate’s order does call for issuance/renewal of
passport in accordance with the Rules. These Rules,
it is nobody’s case, are other than the Passports
Rules, 1980. If that is so, under the law stated by
our court, referred to above, the Passport offcie is
bound to renew the Petitioner’s passport for a
period of 10 years.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
20. A plain reading of this judgment makes it
clear that various Division Benches of Bombay High
Court has taken consistent view that aforesaid
gazette notification is not an impediment for
renewing the passport for a period of 10 years.
Indeed, it was observed that the Government is
duty bound to follow the principles and directions
laid down in the previous judgments and renew
passports for a period of ten years.
21. I am in respectful agreement with the view
taken by the various Division Benches of Bombay
High Court. As noticed above, the petitioner was not
afforded with any pre or post decisional hearing
before impounding his passport. The impugned
action and order, therefore, cannot sustain judicial
scrutiny. The pendency of matrimonial cases alone
cannot be a ground to decline renewal of passport.
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12018] (9 of 9) [CW-23342/2025]
The gazette notification aforesaid cannot be a
ground for not renewing the passport for a period of
ten years or for impounding it or restricting it for a
period of one year only. In absence of any report of
Investigating Officer to the contrary and in absence
of any other legal impediment, respondents were
not justified in impounding the passport. The action
of respondents certainly affects right of livelihood of
a travel blogger who keeps body and soul together
by travelling abroad and earning his livelihood
therefrom.
22. Resultantly, the impugned action of
respondents impounding / cancelling the passport is
set aside. Respondents are directed to issue a
regular passport for a period of 10 years to the
petitioner (if there is no other legal impediment). It
is clarified that pendency of aforesaid criminal /
matrimonial cases cannot be a ground to deny the
passport. The aforesaid exercise of issuance of
passport be completed within a period of three
weeks from the date of production of copy of this
order.
The Writ Petition is allowed.”
In light of the aforequoted order dated 07.12.2021 [Hardik
Shah (supra)], the instant writ petition is also allowed, in the
same terms.
All other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
240-Tikam/-
(Uploaded on 13/03/2026 at 05:30:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/03/2026 at 08:38:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
