ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s): “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ petition in the nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ, order and directions: (i) The action of the respondent authority in renewing the passport of the petitioner for a validity period of only one year may kindly be declared illegal. (ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to renew the passport of the petitioner for a 10 year validity period as prescribed under the Rules of 1980. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the passport was issued to the petitioner bearing passport No.J8161277 having validity from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2021. The petitioner, being in Police Department, was promoted on the post of Inspector and in the year 2019, a Criminal case was registered against the petitioner by Anti Corruption Bureau through FIR No.289/2019 dated 27.09.2019, as a consequence of which, the petitioner was suspended and the petitioner was thereafter compulsorily retired from the service. 3. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur filed a charge-sheet and thereafter, a criminal case No.254/2019 was registered against the petitioner and the same is pending adjudication before the learned Special Court, Anti Corruption Bureau–1, Jaipur Metropolitan No.2. The petitioner thereafter, started pursuing his family business of export of stones for which he had to undertake frequent travels to foreign countries and accordingly, the validity of the petitioner's passport was extended by the respondent but only for a period of one year. The petitioner has also been doing the business of export and import of granite stones for which a certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner dated 10.04.2023. The petitioner’s original passport expired on 30.06.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner preferred the application before the Special Court ACB – 1 seeking permission to travel abroad as well as the direction to the respondent for renewal of his passport. Learned trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.5) allowed the petitioner’s application and directed the respondent to renew his passport in accordance with law. 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.5) allowed the petitioner’s application and directed the respondent to renew his passport in accordance with law. 4. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent for renewal of his passport and the petitioner was granted renewal with a validity of only one year i.e. from 23.09.2022 to 22.09.2023. Though, the passport of the petitioner was renewed after 23.09.2022 but on account of the requirement of minimum six months validity period of passport for visa purposes in certain countries, where the petitioner’s business is situated and as such, the petitioner can exercise the passport only for the initial six months and for remaining six months it will be of no use. 5. For further renewal of his passport, the petitioner preferred the Misc. Application No.115/2023 before the learned court praying for passing of a specific order for issuance of the passport having validity period of 10 years. 6. Learned trial court vide its order dated 29.04.2023 (Annex.8) again ordered the respondent for renewal of the petitioner’s passport No.W4445712 in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner again submitted an application dated 09.05.2023 to the respondent requesting them to issue the passport, as prescribed under the Passport Rules, 1980 (‘Rules of 1980’), for a period of 10 years. It was orally informed to the petitioner, that he would be issued the passport having validity period of only one year and, therefore, the petitioner did not pursue the application dated 09.05.2023. 8. The respondent verbally stated that learned trial court has nowhere directed for considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport as per the Notification dated 25.08.1993 but has clearly ordered for issuance of the passport, as per law, therefore, the petitioner was issued the passport for a period of one year only. The petitioner being aggrieved earlier preferred writ petition being SBCWP No.7409/2023 before this Court, however, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh vide order dated 24.01.2024 (Annex.11) in WMAP No.250/2023. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Rule 12 (1) of the Passport Rules, 1980, the respondent is required to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Rule 12 (1) of the Passport Rules, 1980, the respondent is required to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Ministry of External Affairs has issued a Notification dated 25.08.1993 while granting exemption to the 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 Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of the Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 (‘Act of 1967’), subject to the following conditions:- “(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued- (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year, (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the pass- port, then passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order (b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the count is not cancelled or modified: (c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renew- ed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the pass- port issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Notification dated 25.08.1993 (Annex.11), the petitioner’s case was under Clause (i), wherein, it has been specifically said that the passport is to be issued to every citizen for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies in such order, the passport shall be issued, however, in the present case, apparently the learned trial court vide order dated 29.04.2023 has specifically said that the petitioner may be issued passport in accordance with law. He further submits that as per Rule 12, the Duration of passports or travel documents ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years, from the date of its issue. He also submits that as per sub-section 2 (f) of the Section 6 of the Passports Act 1967, the Authority can refuse for issuance of passports/travel documents, etc. wherein, proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, wherein, the power to exempt has been bestowed upon the Central Government if it finds necessary or expedient in the public interest, it may by Notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the Notification can exempt to any person for the purpose of issuing of the passport and as the exemption has been granted vide Notification dated 25.08.1993, petitioner ought to be given renewal for a period of 10 years. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has to travel aboard very frequently for the purpose of business, that he has undertaken, the petitioner has to regularly file an application before the learned trial court as well as before the respondent for issuance of the passport, however, the same is being issued to him only for a period of one year, which is causing great inconvenience to the petitioner for the purpose of professing his business. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in (W.P. No.361/2014) : Narendra K. Ambwani Vs. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in (W.P. No.361/2014) : Narendra K. Ambwani Vs. Union of India & Ors, decided on 13.03.2014 and another judgment of Madras High Court in (W.P. No.332/2022) : Karti P.Chidambaram Vs. The Regional Passport Officer, decided on 28.02.2022. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned trial court in its order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.5) & 29.04.2023 (Annex.8) has not specified the period for which the passport has to be issued in favour of the petitioner and thus as per the Notification dated 28.08.1993, the petitioner has rightly been issued the passport for a period of one year. Learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of the Court to sub-Section 2(b) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 while submitting that as no period has been specified by the learned trial court, thus in light of the provision aforesaid, the petitioner’s passport as been renewed for one year only. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. From bare perusal of the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.5) & 29.04.2023 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Trial Court, it is apparent that though no period has been specified in the order, however, it has been said that the passport may be issued in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. 18. Thus, upon perusal of the Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, it is seen that for the purpose of Duration of passports or travel documents, an ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years, from the date of its issue. Thus, if the word ‘in accordance with law’ is interpreted then the petitioner’s case would fall under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1980, wherein passport ought to have been issued to the petitioner for a period of ten years. Thus, if the word ‘in accordance with law’ is interpreted then the petitioner’s case would fall under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1980, wherein passport ought to have been issued to the petitioner for a period of ten years. Condition No.(a) (ii) of the Notification dated 25.08.1993 specifies that the passport is to be issued to every such citizen, if no period for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the same shall be issued for a period of one year, however, it has been specifically observed in the order dated 29.04.2023 (Annex.8) that the passport may be issued in favour of the petitioner “in accordance with law’’ and thus, as per Rule 12 (1) of the Rules of 1980, the petitioner ought to have been issued the passport for a period of ten years. 19. As per Rule 12 (1) of the Rules of 1980, the respondents are required to renew the passport of a person for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance. The relevant provisions is reproduced hereunder:- “12. Duration of passports or travel documents.- (I) An ordinary passport for persons other than children below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years, from the date of its issue.” 20. As it is evident from the language of Rule 12 that ordinarily the respondents shall issue passport for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance, however, in the present case, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, thus under Section 6 (2) (f), the passport authority has the power to refuse to issue a passport for visiting any foreign country, in case, proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a Criminal in India. Relevant portion of sub-section 2 (f) of the Section 6 of the Passports Act 1967 is reproduced hereunder:- “(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;” 21. Relevant portion of sub-section 2 (f) of the Section 6 of the Passports Act 1967 is reproduced hereunder:- “(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;” 21. It is also seen that Section 22 of the Act lays down the power where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest, it may by notification in the official gazette exempt any person from operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder. Upon perusal of the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 (Annex.10), it is reflected that the said Notification has been issued while invoking Section 22 while extending exemption to the 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 produces orders from the Court concerned, permitting them to depart from India. Upon perusal of the Clause (i) of clause (a) it is seen that passport can be issued to the citizen for the period specified in the order of the Court referred to above, if the Court specifies period for which the passport has to be issued. In the present case, as the learned trial court has specifically directed the respondent to renew the passport of the petitioner in accordance with law, thus undoubtedly, the petitioner’s case would fall under Rule 12 (1) of the Passport Rules, 1980, where the respondents are required to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance. 22. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the renewal of the passport of the petitioner has been made for a period of one year in accordance with sub-Clause (2) of Clause (a) of the Notification dated 25.08.1993 is having no force, as this particular clause can be invoked only if there is no period specified for the issuing the passport for the travel abroad and in the present case, the learned Trial Court has specifically mentioned that the passport of the petitioner shall be renewed in accordance with law. 23. 23. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents while renewing the passport of the petitioner for a period of one year is not justified and is not in accordance with the Notification dated 25.08.1993 as well as Rule 12 of the Rules of 1980, as the petitioner cannot be denied issuance/renewal of passport for a period of ten years from the date of its issuance. 24. It is also considered that the petitioner has placed on record the details of his travel and has given the details of the list of countries, where the petitioner is required to travel frequently owing to the nature of his business, which is reflected in page 6 of the writ petition and thus, admittedly renewal of passport for a period of one year caused inconvenience to the petitioner. 25. Consequently, if the petitioner files requisite application before the respondent within a period of 15 days from today, the respondent may consider the same and renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of ten years strictly in accordance with law. 26. It is made clear that upon issuance of the passport as and when the petitioner wants to go abroad and leave the country, he is required to take the leave of the concerned court for the period and duration he wants to travel so as to ensure that the trial is not hampered. 27. The writ petition stands allowed. The stay petition as well as any other application, if any, also stand disposed of.