ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This Writ Petition is a checkered litigation. The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner is the Managing Director of PCH Group of Companies i.e. PCH Corporation Limited, PCH Lifestyle Limited and PCH Retail Limited. The said companies are engaged in the business of importing Electronics Goods like Laptops, Mobiles, Furniture and Consumer durables from various countries and to carry the business activities, petitioner he has to travel abroad. 1.1. It is stated, the above companies had availed loan/credit facility from various Banks and defaulted in repayment. Hence, petitioners accounts were declared as NPA in 2013. Consequently, the Banks have lodged complaints/reports with CBI at Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. 1.2. It is stated, based on the report of Punjab and Sind Bank, George Town Br, Chennai, CBI, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai registered R.C. No. 10/E/2014 under Sections 420, 468 and 120(B) IPC. and petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2015 and was later enlarged on bail on 22.06.2015 by Madras High Court. The CBI-EOW/Chennai addressed letter to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad to impound petitioner's passport bearing No. 22507790 dated 26.08.2013. Accordingly, the Regional Passport Officer impounded the passport on 15.04.2015 by proceedings No. 30(21) PO 1/2015 and the same was confirmed by proceedings No. VIII/402/App-55/2015 dated 22.08.2015. Challenging these proceedings and also seeking a direction to Respondents to permit him travel abroad, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 36913 of 2015, wherein this Court by order dated 16.12.2016 granted interim suspension of the impugned order, pursuant to which, he travelled abroad for 35 times. 1.3. While so, a Look Out Circular was issued against petitioner by the CBI, EOW, Chennai. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl.O.P. No. 11044 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 before the High Court of Madras. On 24.06.2015 the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai to withdraw the Look Out Circular. The CBI, EOW, Chennai filed a charge sheet before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Alikulam) Egnore, Chennai, under Sections 120(B) read with 420 IPC and it was numbered as C.C. No. 5231 of 2015. 1.4. On 24.06.2015 the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai to withdraw the Look Out Circular. The CBI, EOW, Chennai filed a charge sheet before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Alikulam) Egnore, Chennai, under Sections 120(B) read with 420 IPC and it was numbered as C.C. No. 5231 of 2015. 1.4. The State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Hyderabad lodged a report before CBI, EOW, Chennai for non- payment of its dues which was registered as R.C. No. 10/E/ 2017 dated 15.12.2017 under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477(A) of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently the said report was transferred to CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, for investigation wherein a charge sheet was filed and it was numbered as C.C. No. 5574 of 2022 on the file of the XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 1.5. The Andhra Bank represented by its Circle General Manager lodged a report before CBI, BS&FC, Bengaluru for non- payment of its dues and it is registered as R.C. No. 1 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019 under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC. A Look Out Circular was also issued by the CBI, BS&FC, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by this Look Out Circular, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7882 of 2019 wherein this Court on 25.04.2019 Court passed the following order: “ There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to deprive the petitioner of the privilege of foreign travel, unless and until the Passport is impounded. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take steps regarding intimation of his travel details to Respondent No. 4 - CBI. Further, the petitioner shall give an undertaking before this court by way of an affidavit regarding his travel details, which shall be placed on record, well in advance before he intends to travel abroad and a copy of the said affidavit shall be served on respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 also.” In view of the said order, petitioner is stated to have travelled abroad. 1.6. It is further stated, pursuant to the Circular dated 13.05.2015 of the Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued to Banks by RBI, the subsequent complaint lodged by the SBI, Hyderabad was tagged with the complaint of Andhra Bank vide RC No. 1/2019. Charge sheets have been filed before the XXI Addl. 1.6. It is further stated, pursuant to the Circular dated 13.05.2015 of the Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued to Banks by RBI, the subsequent complaint lodged by the SBI, Hyderabad was tagged with the complaint of Andhra Bank vide RC No. 1/2019. Charge sheets have been filed before the XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on 04.01.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 120 read with Section 420 and substantive offence under Section 420 IPC. On the above complaints, ECIR was registered as ECIR/HYZO/08/2015 on 13.08.2015 by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad alleging that both PCH Lifestyle Ltd. and PCH Retail Ltd. availed credit facilities from the consortium of banks at the direction of petitioner. A final report was filed vide C.C. No. 5231 of 2017 before the Special Judge, alleging that petitioner had caused wrongful loss to Punjab & Sind Bank to the tune of Rs. 22.15 crores including interest as on 30.07.2014 by availing credit facilities from the bank. On 15.12.2017 second FIR was registered by the CBI, EOW, Chennai against M/s PCH Retail Ltd., petitioner and other under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for defrauding SBI, Hyderabad to a tune of Rs. 133.95 crores. Yet another FIR was filed by CBI, BS & FB, Bengaluru under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 IPC on the basis of a complaint by Andhra Bank that petitioner availed loan of Rs. 28.44 crores and failed to repay the same. Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and enlarged on 06.04.2022. 1.7. It is further stated, the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Officer, on completion of investigation filed a prosecution complaint vide S.C. No. 264 of 2022 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Petitioner was directed to surrender his passport bearing No. 24384257 with the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office and not to leave the country without prior permission of the competent Court. Accordingly, petitioner surrendered his passport on 07.04.2022. Since petitioner's passport expired on 25.08.2023, he requested the Deputy Director on 13.10.2023 to release his original passport to get it renewed, but the said request was rejected. Accordingly, petitioner surrendered his passport on 07.04.2022. Since petitioner's passport expired on 25.08.2023, he requested the Deputy Director on 13.10.2023 to release his original passport to get it renewed, but the said request was rejected. Petitioner therefore, is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 30664 of 2023 which was allowed by this Court on 16.11.2023 directing the Directorate officials to hand over passport No. 24384257 to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad, which was directed to consider petitioner's Application dated 06.10.2023 for renewal of the same and pass orders; the RPO shall upon renewal of the passport return the same to the Directorate. Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the competent court. Accordingly, a fresh passport No. B8820888 was issued which was valid up to 08.01.2025 and it was handed over to the Directorate. 1.8. The SBI issued a Look Out Circular to prevent the petitioner from travelling abroad. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 8695 of 2024 challenging the same. This Writ Petition along Writ Petition No. 25229 of 2021 was allowed by order dated 26.06.2024 on the following conditions: “i. That the petitioners shall furnish security for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) each to the satisfaction of the learned XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 5574 of 2022, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. The consortium of banks (respondents herein) are at liberty to apply to any Court or Tribunal under applicable law for an order against an individual borrower petitioners) or guarantors or person(s) indebted for restraining such person(s) from travelling overseas. iii. If the petitioner intend to travel abroad, they shall file an application before the trial Courts in cases pending against them seeking permission to travel abroad and it is for the trial Courts to consider the same in accordance with law. Petitioner filed Review Petition No. 4 of 2024 in W.P. No. 8695 of 2024 to change the word "Security" to "solvent surety". The Review was allowed on 05.09.2024 and petitioner complied with the conditions. 1.9. As the passport B8820888 issued on 09.01.2024 expired on 08.01.2025, petitioner submitted an Application for renewal of passport on 09.07.2024 for ten years. Petitioner filed Review Petition No. 4 of 2024 in W.P. No. 8695 of 2024 to change the word "Security" to "solvent surety". The Review was allowed on 05.09.2024 and petitioner complied with the conditions. 1.9. As the passport B8820888 issued on 09.01.2024 expired on 08.01.2025, petitioner submitted an Application for renewal of passport on 09.07.2024 for ten years. The RPO, Hyderabad vide proceedings No. HY1076810476724 (Legal Section) dated 03.09.2024, rejected petitioner's request under Section 5(2)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Section 6(2)(f) in view of pendency of CC No. 5231 of 2017 before the Chief Metropolitan Court, Egmore, Chennai and also S.C. No. 264 of 2022 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. It is also stated that his request would be considered if petitioner submits acquittal order or an order permitting him to travel abroad from the jurisdictional Court. Challenging this, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 34399 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 09.12.2024 directed the RPO, Hyderabad to take steps for renewal of passport in due compliance of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs Central Bureau of Investigation {2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572}. This Court also imposed certain conditions to be complied with by petitioner. 1.10. Petitioner contends that pendency of criminal case cannot be the ground to deny passport facilities, since his right to personal liberty not only includes right to travel abroad but also right to possess or hold a passport, as such denial of renewal of passport by Respondent No.3 is contrary to law; right to go abroad is part of 'personal liberty'; he travelled abroad several times and returned to India as per the undertaking filed before the Court but no prejudice was cased to RPO; if his passport is renewed for ten years, petitioner will intimate the Courts concerned by filing undertaking affidavits about his travel, etc. In support of his case, petitioner relied on the judgments below: i) Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi v. UOI , 2024 SCC On Line T'S 402 ii) Ravi Kumar Panasa v. UOI , 2022 SCC On Line TS 3474 iii) Alex Richadson Laurindo D' Souza v. The State of Goa , W.P.No. 291 of 2025 (F) DB of High Court of Bombay at Goa; iv) Maneka Gandhi v. UOI , 1978 SCR (2) 621 v) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Asst. Passport Officer , AIR 1967 SC 1836 vi) Karti P. Chindambaram v. Bureau of Immigration , 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2229 of Madras HC vii) Vengala Kasturi Rangachargyulu (supra); viii) Rana Ayyub v. UOI , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 961 ix) Mrs. Komal Sutinder Singh v. UOI , W.P. No. 2078 of 2024 dt. 17.03.2024 of TSHC x) Jagan Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. , Crl.P.No. 6239 of 2024 dated 11.09.2024 of APHC xi) Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. UOI , [Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025) dated 19.12.2025 1.11. It is further contended, petitioner's passport bearing No. C-8709284 will expire on 28.02.2026, hence, he applied to Respondent No.3 for renewal of the same for a period of ten years. The 3 rd respondent by the impugned order HY1075360084525 dated 11.08.2025 refused the passport services in view of the pending criminal cases. Challenging the said order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25448 of 2025 and withdrew the same on 22.09.2025 and filed Appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 (the 1967 Act) before the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction on his appeal, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 32235 of 2025, which was dismissed on 25.10.2025 for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., Complainants in C.C.No. 5321/2017 and PMLA SC No. 264/2022. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1283 of 2025. A learned Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.11.2025 allowed and disposed of the Appeal directing the 2 nd respondent to issue notice to the appellant for hearing of the Appeal and shall follow the procedure prescribed under the 1967 Act and the Rules, preferably by 31.12.2025. 1.12. The 2nd respondent by the impugned proceedings Nos. VIII/402/App-150/2025 dated 18.11.2025 dismissed the Appeal of petitioner upholding the order of the 3 rd respondent, refusing to renew the passport. Challenging the impugned orders of Respondents 3 and 2 dated 11.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 respectively, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Prabhakar Sripada assisted by Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for petitioner submits that while passing the impugned orders, respondents violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Challenging the impugned orders of Respondents 3 and 2 dated 11.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 respectively, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Prabhakar Sripada assisted by Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for petitioner submits that while passing the impugned orders, respondents violated the Principles of Natural Justice. It is argued that the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 18.11.2025 is perverse and mala fide as it appears to have been back-dated to get over the order of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1283/2025 dated 19.11.2025. According to learned Senior Counsel, insistence of Respondents 2 and 3 for obtaining Courts' order/permission to depart from India is contrary to the order in Writ Petition No. 34399 of 2024 wherein petitioner was directed to submit an undertaking along with an affidavit before the Courts where the criminal cases are pending; 2.1. The 2 nd respondent failed to take note of the fact that petitioner had already submitted solvent surety of Rs.25,00,000/- before the XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CC No. 5574 of 2022 and after obtaining permission from that Court travelled abroad. Hence, requests the learned Senior Counsel to grant the relief sought for. 3. Respondents filed counter refuting the contentions of petitioner. It is stated, Rule 12 of the Passport Rules only states that an ordinary passport shall be in force for a period of ten years, which means that an ordinary passport cannot be issued beyond a period of 10 years, whereas petitioner's case is under the ambit of Ministry's Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. In view of Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 petitioner can get 10 years' validity passport only if he submits Court order of acquittal or an order specifying, the period of validity of ten years; otherwise only one year validity passport will be issued. 3.1. It is stated, petitioner applied for passport facilities under re-issue category vide File No. HY1075360084525 dated 18.07.2025 and the file was put on hold due to pendency of criminal cases and a refusal letter dated 11.08.2025 was issued asking him to furnish either permission of the Court or NOC to depart from India in terms of Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 or alternatively, submit acquittal orders. This order also sensitizes him the provision for Appeal. 3.2. Petitioner filed Appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 11 of the 1967 Act. This order also sensitizes him the provision for Appeal. 3.2. Petitioner filed Appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 11 of the 1967 Act. After examination, the 2nd respondent refused petitioner's passport Application under Section 6(2)(f) by the impugned order dated 18.11.2025. Before passing the impugned orders, petitioner was requested to furnish either acquittal order or permission from the trial Court to depart from India as per the provisions of Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. However, he failed to furnish none of them. Hence, the impugned orders are passed. Even at the time of filing of Appeal also, petitioner has an opportunity to submit the required orders, but he failed to do so. In Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993, there is a provision to exempt those passport applicants who are facing trial in criminal cases in any Indian Criminal Courts, from being refused a passport under Section 6(2)(f) and issuance of passport with validity as decided by the trial Court, otherwise a passport with one year validity will be issued. Since petitioner failed to furnish any order as stated above, he is given a passport with one year validity as per Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993. In view of the above averments, respondents contend that the contentions of the petitioner raised in the ground are not true and correct. 4. Heard Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents. 5. In view of the above averments, respondents contend that the contentions of the petitioner raised in the ground are not true and correct. 4. Heard Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondents. 5. For convenience's sake, Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act which enables refusal of issuance of a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, is extracted below: “ Section 6(2) in The Passports Act, 1967 (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: - (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. (emphasis supplied)” 6. (emphasis supplied)” 6. The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs O/o Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer, PSP Division, issued Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 which is reproduced below:- “ GSR 570(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E), dated the 14th of April, 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts 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 (1) of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely- 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 of one year: 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; iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the 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 court is not cancelled or modified; c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad: d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport 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”. 7. From a reading of the above Section, it is clear that issuance of a passport can be rejected if proceedings in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India. Admittedly, four criminal cases, as stated above, are pending against petitioner. GSR 570(E) empowers the passport issuing authority to issue passport in cases where criminal cases are pending against petitioner (1) for a period specified in the order of the Court directing the passport authority to issue passport; and (2) if no such period is specified, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year. Undisputedly, criminal cases are pending against petitioner in various criminal Courts/High Courts. So, in the normal course, his Application for issuance of passport will be rejected in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act. However, as rightly observed in the impugned order, in view of Clause 2(a)(ii) of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, petitioner is entitled for a passport valid for one year as he has not produced any order from a competent Court directing the passport issuing authorities to issue a passport for a period specified in the order. 8. The 3 rd respondent in the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 while rejecting the request of petitioner for issuance of passport with a validity of ten years, has categorically stated: "3. This office can reconsider your application, if you submit acquittal orders or obtain permission to depart from India from the same Hon'ble Court where the criminal proceedings are still pending. The 3 rd respondent in the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 while rejecting the request of petitioner for issuance of passport with a validity of ten years, has categorically stated: "3. This office can reconsider your application, if you submit acquittal orders or obtain permission to depart from India from the same Hon'ble Court where the criminal proceedings are still pending. In this regard, the Ministry of External Affairs Gazette Notification vide GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 is enclosed herewith for your information." 9. In view of the above, petitioner instead of agitating the orders of Respondents 3 and 2 issued in the teeth of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, can approach the trial Courts before which criminal cases against petitioner are pending for trial and get an order to the respondent-Passport authorities to issue/renew Passport/Travelling Permit for a specific period and produce the same before the 3rd respondent and get passport for that specified period. However, instead of resorting to that course of action, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the orders of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 2 dated 11.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 respectively, without challenging either Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act or GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. 10. In the judgments referred to supra, the refrain principles enunciated are: i) The legitimate purpose behind Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the 1967 Act is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court. This purpose will be served by imposing certain conditions such as seeking prior permission of the Court before travelling abroad, re-deposit of passport immediately after renewal. ii) A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. iii) To refuse renewal of passport on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage. iv) Pendency of criminal case against the applicant cannot straight away empower the authorities to renew the passport. v) Right to go abroad is part of 'personal liberty within the meaning of Art. 21 of the COI and no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. 11. iv) Pendency of criminal case against the applicant cannot straight away empower the authorities to renew the passport. v) Right to go abroad is part of 'personal liberty within the meaning of Art. 21 of the COI and no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. 11. There is no dispute with the principle(s) enunciated in the above cases, but it is to be noted that in none of the cases, an order passed in the teeth of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 has come for consideration. When there is a specific mandate by the Government of India in GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 that a passport/travel permit shall be issued for the period specified in the order of the Court before which criminal cases against the applicant are pending; or if no period either for issue of passport or for travel abroad is specified in such order, passport shall be issued for a period of one year; respondents-passport authorities cannot travel beyond this mandate and issue passport/permission to travel abroad. Admittedly, petitioner has not obtained any order from trial Courts before which criminal cases against him are pending, directing respondent-passport authorities to issue/renew passport/permission to travel abroad for a specific period other than one year. He has not even challenged GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. Hence, he is precluded from contending that the impugned orders passed in terms of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 are bad and illegal. 12. Further, Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 says that an ordinary passport shall be in force for a period of ten years from the date of its issue. The Rule is extracted hereunder:- “ Rule-12. Duration of passports or travel documents. [(1) 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. (1-A) An ordinary passport for a child below the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages shall be in force for a period of 5 years from the date of its issue or until the child attains the age of 15 years, whichever is earlier.] (2) [***] (3) [***] (4) An emergency certificate shall continue in force for a period of [sex months) from the date of its issue. (5) A certificate of identity shall continue in force for a period of [ten] years from the date of its issue.] (6) A diplomatic and an official passport shall continue in force for a period to be decided in each case by the Central Government of the passport authority which issues the passport. Provided that the total life of a diplomatic or an official passport shall be ten years from the date of its issue.” This period of currency of ten years as stated in Rule 12(1) is subject to several other provisions such as Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act, guidelines issued in GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 etcetera. Petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, demand issuance of passport with validity of ten years, when criminal cases are pending against him. If petitioner is given a passport/permission to travel abroad with ten years' validity what impact it will have on his Creditors? Only the creditor Banks Punjab and Sind Bank, George Town Branch, Chennai; State Bank of India, CBI, Chennai, EOW; Andhra Bank, Circle Office, Hyderabad and the State Bank of India, Hyderabad can answer this question. However, petitioner for the reasons best known to him, has not arrayed his creditors as respondents to this Writ Petition, probably with an apprehension that they may vehemently contest. 13. In the light of the above, it can safely be said that the impugned orders of Respondents 3 and 2 dated 11.08.2025 and 18.11.2025 respectively are well within the mandatory instructions / guidelines issued in GSR 570E dated 25.08.1993 and the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980 and nothing illegality in these orders is established. The Writ Petition, in the opinion of this Court, is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 15. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.