IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO. 1516 OF 2008 PETITION (LODG) NO. 1516 OF 2008 PETITION (LODG) NO. 1516 OF 2008 Rajendra R. Chaturvedi ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra & anr. ] .. Respondents Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, senior counsel i/b A.G. Damle for the petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP, for the respondent No.1. Mr. R.V. Desai, senior counsel with Mrs.N.V. Masurkar and H.V. Mehta for the respondent No.2. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: 23RD JUNE, 2008 P.C. : 1. Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in an application which was made to the Metropolitan Magistrate, two prayers were made. The first prayer was that the petitioner be allowed to travel abroad with the permission of the Magistrate and the second one was that the Regional Passport Officer be directed to issue Passport to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Jahagirdar further submits that the : 2 : Magistrate has only considered one prayer viz. giving directions to the Passport authority to issue Passport and that the view taken by the Magistrate that the Magistrate does not have power to direct the Passport authority to issue Passport is correct. However, he submits that the other prayer viz. permission to travel abroad with the permission of the Magistrate has not been considered by the Magistrate. 3. In view of the Notification dated 25th August, 1993, a scheme has been provided that where the court grants permission to travel abroad, restricted passport facility can be granted by the Passport authority and, therefore, Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate had a power to consider the application filed by the petitioner for getting permission to travel abroad. Since the said aspect has not been considered by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the learned senior counsel submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Metropolitan Magistrate with directions to consider the prayer of the petitioner to travel abroad with the permission of the Magistrate. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for remanding the matter back accordingly. 4. We. therefore, pass the following Order: : 3 : (1) This Writ Petition challenging the order of the Magistrate to the extent that the Magistrate does not have power to issue directions to the Passport authority to issue passport to the petitioner is dismissed. (2) Insofar as other reliefs sought for by this Petition are concerned, the matter is remitted back to the Metropolitan Magistrate to consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to travel abroad with the permission of the Magistrate and, if so, for what period, as also subject to which conditions, if any. (3) On such permission being granted, the Passport authority shall consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to restricted Passport facility under Notification dated 25th August, 1993. (4) The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application within a period of one week from the receipt of a : 4 : duly authenticated copy of this order. 4. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- [A.A. [A.A. [A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]