It Is Discretion Of Court To Prescribe Period While Renewing Passport But Some Reasons Are Expected: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court recently dealt with a Criminal Petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi where the Applicant was permitted to apply for a Passport/renewal only for one year despite specifically praying for permission to apply for the Passport for a period of ten years.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal noted that the impugned order was a non-reasoned order and observed that "It is of course the discretion of the Court to prescribe the period for renewal of the passport and for granting permission for a particular period. But when a specific prayer for a particular period is made, then if that period is not granted or a lesser period is granted; some reasons are expected."
Advocate Vikram Sutaria along with Advocates Harshita Shroff and Agastya Desai appeared for the Applicant while the State of Maharashtra was represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor M. R. Tidke.
The Applicant, Amit Lakhan Nihal, had applied an application before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi for the renewal of the passport for a period of 10 years. The ADJ Court disposed of the application with the order that "Applicant/accused Amit Lakhan Nihal is permitted to apply for renewal of passport to the Passport Authority."
Finding no mention of the period in the operative part of the order despite praying for 10 years, the applicant again approached the same Court for clarification of the said order and filed another application in the same Sessions Case. The Application, this time, got disposed of with the order that "Applicant/accused Amit Lakhan Nihal is permitted to apply for passport/renewal for 1 year". Being aggrieved with the same, the applicant approached the High Court in the present matter.
The Applicant invited the Court's attention to his original application for renewal of the passport where his specific prayer was for permission to apply for the Passport for a period of ten years to the Passport Authority. The High Court noted that "As can been, in neither of these orders passed by learned Trial Judge, the reasons are given as to why permission was not granted for renewal of the passport for 10 years. In the first instance, no period was mentioned. On the second occasion, one year period was granted. As rightly submitted by the Applicant’s advocate, no reasons are given for limiting the renewal for a period of one year."
Remanding the said application for fresh consideration, the High Court observed that "It is made clear that, it would be entirely the discretion of the learned Trial Judge to decide the period for which renewal permission can be granted. However, learned Trial Judge shall give sufficient reasons for fixing that particular period."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order and directed that "Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi shall consider the Exhibit-3 in Sessions Case No.105 of 2023 afresh and decide by giving reasons, for how much period the passport can be renewed."
Cause Title: Amit Lakhan Nihal v. The State of Maharashtra
