Sh. Ankur Mittal v. Sr. Superintendent Policy Regional Passport Office,

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7471/2025 SH. ANKUR MITTAL .....Petitioner Through:

Ms.

Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr.

Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr.

Aniket Khanduri and Mr Yash Baraliya, Advs.

versus SR. SUPERINTENDENT POLICY REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC with Mr.

Kunal Raj, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 07.01.2026 1.

The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Regional Passport Officer rejecting the renewal of the petitioner‟s passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. 2.

The petitioner‟s passport had expired on 16.05.2023, and he applied for renewal of the same on 23.12.2024.

3.

Criminal proceedings are pending against him under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and on 03.10.2023, an FIR No. 409/2023 has been registered. The petitioner is on bail in both the matters. 4.

There is no restriction by any Court against the renewal of the petitioner‟s passport. In fact, there seems to be a specific order by the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

concerned Court, where the petitioner has been permitted for renewal of the petitioner‟s passport. What seems to be reason for non-renewal of the petitioner‟s passport is that no specific permission granted by the concerned Court for travelling abroad.

5.

Such a controversy has been authoritatively considered by the Supreme Court in its recent judgement in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India.1 Paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the same is extracted as under:

"16. The respondents and the Calcutta High Court have also treated the expression "permission to depart from India" in GSR 570(E) as if it necessarily refers only to a concrete permission for an immediately proposed journey. We do not read the notification in so narrow a manner. Where, as here, the conditions of bail already stipulate that the appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned, and the same court then grants no objection to renewal of the passport without relaxing that condition, the requirement that departure from India shall be subject to judicial permission is built into the very terms of the exemption. The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep the possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that position is clear, GSR 570(E) applies and the bar under Section 6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether.

17. We are also unable to endorse the characterisation by the Division Bench that entertaining the appellant's writ petition would convert the High Court into an "executing court" for the orders of the Delhi High Court and the NIA Court, Ranchi. The writ petition did not seek execution of those orders as such. It sought enforcement of a statutory obligation cast on the passport authority, read with the exemption notification that forms part of the legal regime under the Passports Act. The criminal court orders were relevant facts which determined whether the appellant fell within the exempted category under GSR 570(E). To direct the passport authority to give effect to that exemption is to ensure compliance with the statute and the notification, not to execute the criminal court's orders." 1 2025 INSC 1476 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

6.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025, it would also indicate that the same GSR - 570 was considered by the authority while passing the impugned order and the Supreme Court had clarified the aforesaid GSR in paragraph no. 16 of the said decision. 7.

Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the Regional Passport Authority to reconsider the petitioner‟s request for renewal of his passport.

8.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection, if the petitioner is afforded further opportunity of hearing for reconsideration of his case.

9.

Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner to appear before the concerned authority personally or through Counsel on 22.01.2026 at 11:00 A. M.

10.

On petitioner‟s appearance/ representation before it, the concerned authority shall hear, and thereafter, shall pass a reasoned and appropriate order not later than 30 days from that date.

11.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 7, 2026 aks/amg The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.