AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 175 wordsHeard both sides.
The application for renewal of passport made by the petitioner through the 2nd respondent could not leave a favourable of result because of
pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is kept in house arrest and he will be sent to jail, if the passport is not
renewed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that both criminal cases have been stayed by the court and in one case, the authorities
have taken lenient view.
Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that unless and until the permission to renew the
passport is obtained from the concerned court, the passport cannot be renewed. As criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, though they are
stayed, the petitioner is supposed to applies to the concerned court for permission to renew the passport. This is not done by the petitioner. Therefore
the writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed.