Disposed¶28

Sapna Meghsham Redkar v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Sept 2025IA/2460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal/issuance permission under Notification dated 25 August 1993; applicant facing conviction challenged in pending Criminal Revision Application No.135 of 2014; Bombay High Court interim application disposed of with permission granted; coordinate-bench precedents of 25.03.2019 (Cr. App. 139/2019) and 25.02.2020 (I.A. 1/2020) followed; Union of India did not contest; grant confers no automatic right to passport; Passport Authority bound by parameters in Writ Petition No. 5490 of 2021 dated 07.03.2022.

What did the court decide?

Permission/no-objection as contemplated by Notification dated 25 August 1993 granted to the applicant; Passport Authority to examine her application strictly in accordance with law and to keep in view the binding directions in Writ Petition No. 5490 of 2021 dated 7 March 2022; interim application disposed of.

Sapna Meghsham Redkar vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether permission/no-objection under Notification dated 25 August 1993 should be granted to the applicant, whose criminal revision application challenging her conviction is pending before this Court, so as to enable the Passport Authority to process her application for renewal or issuance of a fresh passport.

¶18

Court's answer

The requirement of obtaining permission under Notification dated 25 August 1993 is essentially procedural: it ensures that pendency of criminal proceedings is brought to the notice of this Court and enables the Court to assess whether there is any legal impediment in granting no-objection for renewal of passport.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Permission/no-objection as contemplated by Notification dated 25 August 1993 deserves to be and is granted, the Court finding no reason to take a different view from the earlier coordinate-bench orders granting similar permission, particularly in the absence of opposition from the respondents.

¶23

Key takeaways

Clarification forming part of the directions with which the application is disposed: the grant of such permission does not by itself confer any right upon the applicant to obtain a passport; the Passport Authority shall examine her application strictly in accordance with law and keep in view the binding directions of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 5490 of 2021 dated 7 March 2022, which lay down the parameters for consideration of such applications.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Amit Borkar, J.) — Interim Application No.2460 of 2025 in Criminal Revision Application No.135 of 2014 (decision dated 10 September 2025). The applicant, whose conviction is under challenge in the pending criminal revision application, sought permission under Notification dated 25 August 1993 to enable the Passport Authority to process her application for renewal or issuance of a fresh passport. The Judge held the permission requirement is essentially procedural — it brings the pendency of criminal proceedings to the Court's notice and allows assessment of any legal impediment to no-objection — and, following the earlier coordinate-bench orders dated 25 March 2019 in Criminal Application No.139 of 2019 and 25 February 2020 in Interim Application No.1 of 2020 in Criminal Revision Application No.135 of 2014, and in the absence of opposition (respondent No.2, Union of India, did not appear despite service), granted the permission/no-objection. It was clarified that the grant does not by itself confer any right to obtain a passport; the Passport Authority must examine the application strictly in accordance with law and keep in view the binding directions of the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 5490 of 2021 dated 7 March 2022 laying down the parameters for such applications.

¶1

72-ia2460-2025.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2460 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.135 OF 2014

¶7

Sapna Meghsham Redkar @ Sapna Amit Kate … Applicant V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Union of India … Respondents

ATUL

GANESH

KULKARNI

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH Mr. Ganesh K Gole with Mr. Ateet Shirodkar, Mr. Bhavin KULKARNI Date: 2025.09.10 17:13:51 +0530 Jain, Kunjan Makwana i/by Mr. Ateet Shirodkar for the applicant.

¶13

Mrs. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for respondent No.1-State.

¶14

Mr. Sachin Tayade, HC, MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai, is present.

¶15

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶16

DATED : SEPTEMBER 10, 2025

¶17

P.C.:

¶18

The applicant has filed the present interim application seeking permission of this Court as mandated under Notification dated 25 August 1993. The necessity of such permission arises because a criminal revision application challenging the conviction of the applicant is already pending before this Court. Unless such permission is granted, the Passport Authority would not process the application of the applicant for renewal or issuance of a fresh passport.

¶19

¶20

72-ia2460-2025.doc

¶21

Learned Advocate for the applicant has drawn my attention to earlier precedents of this Court. He referred to the order dated 25 March 2019 passed in Criminal Application No. 139 of 2019, as well as the order dated 25 February 2020 passed in Interim Application No.1 of 2020 in Criminal Revision Application No.135 of 2014. In both these matters, coordinate Benches of this Court had granted similar permission in terms of the said Notification. The learned Advocate further relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5490 of 2021, decided on 7 March 2022, wherein it was laid down that while considering an application for fresh passport or renewal, the Passport Authority must keep in view the law declared by this Court in the said judgment.

¶22

Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. This indicates that respondent No.2 has chosen not to contest the present application.

¶23

I have carefully considered the earlier orders passed by coordinate Benches of this Court on 25 March 2019 and 25 February 2020. In both these cases, permission was granted in circumstances similar to the present one. The requirement of obtaining permission under Notification dated 25 August 1993 is essentially procedural. It ensures that pendency of criminal proceedings is brought to the notice of this Court, and it enables the Court to assess whether there is any legal impediment in granting no-objection for renewal of passport. Having regard to the said precedents, and in absence of opposition from the respondents, I find no reason to take a different view. Therefore,

¶24

¶25

72-ia2460-2025.doc

¶26

the permission/no-objection as contemplated by Notification dated 25 August 1993 deserves to be granted.

¶27

However, it is clarified that the grant of such permission by this Court does not, by itself, confer any right upon the applicant to obtain a passport. The Passport Authority shall examine the application of the applicant strictly in accordance with law. While doing so, the Authority shall also keep in view the binding directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5490 of 2021 dated 7 March 2022, which lays down the parameters for consideration of such applications.

¶28

With these observations and directions, the interim application stands disposed of.

¶29

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶30

Sapna Meghsham Redkar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Meghsham Redkar v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Nagari Coop. Hsg. Ltd. Thr. Its President and Secretary vs State of Maharashtra Thr. G.P. and Ors.

Chandrakant Balu Kheloji and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited through Shri. Bharat Maruti Masal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Iifl Finance Limited vs Balaji Enterprises

Galaxy Heights Chs Ltd. Thro. Its the Chairman/Secretary Thro. Its Authorized Represen. vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operatives Societies (Cidco)

Mahendra Pratap kuldeep Singh vs State of Maharashtra