In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional rights over arbitrary administrative actions, the Bombay High Court has directed the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police to instruct the Regional Passport Office to renew and hand over the passport of Dubai-based businessman Gaurav Goenka for ten years, despite an ongoing investigation in India.
The bench of Justice R.N. Laddha passed the order while allowing Goenka’s interim application seeking modification of an earlier court ruling dated May 6, 2025. The court observed that Goenka had “appeared and fully cooperated” with the investigating agency via audio-video conferencing on four different dates — 7 May, 30 May, 4 June, and 5 June 2025 — in compliance with its earlier directions.
Goenka, a 49-year-old Indian citizen and resident of Dubai Marina, had applied for renewal of his Indian passport at the BLS centre in Dubai. His original passport was collected, but on November 28, 2024, the Consulate General of India in Dubai informed him that the renewal was on hold due to “remarks” from the Mumbai Regional Passport Office requiring EOW clearance.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that clearance was linked to an ongoing probe in FIR No. 14 of 2018, though no summons had been issued to him. Dr. Kantawala claimed the EOW’s directive to withhold his passport renewal was arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to the principles of natural justice as laid down in the Supreme Court ruling Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008).
The High Court noted only the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967 can impound a passport, and due process — including a notice and opportunity of hearing — must be followed. The EOW had not taken any such lawful steps but still blocked the renewal. Goenka had voluntarily approached the EOW offering to cooperate and even sought to record his statement remotely. However, his request was initially rejected by the Special MPID Court in April 2025.
Given that Goenka had since complied with all court directions and appeared for questioning on multiple occasions from abroad, the bench concluded that there was no legal ground to deny him the renewal and physical possession of his passport in the UAE.
Allowing the modification, the court directed, “The respondent shall issue appropriate instructions to the Regional Passport Office to facilitate renewal (for ten years) and hand over the passport of the petitioner to him in the UAE, in view of his appearance and cooperation with the investigating agency.”
The ruling underscores that investigating agencies cannot bypass the statutory safeguards of the Passport Act by informally directing passport authorities to withhold renewal. It also affirms that fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 extend to citizens residing abroad, especially when they have demonstrated cooperation with Indian investigations.
This case adds to a line of precedents from the Bombay High Court — including Narendra K. Ambawani v. Union of India (2014) and Samip Nitin Ranjani v. Union of India (2016) — holding that passport renewal for the standard 10-year term is the norm unless legally curtailed through due process.
Case Details
Case Title: Gaurav Goenka Versus The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Interim Application (St) No. 11956 of 2025 In Writ Petition No. 2557 of 2025
Date: 13 August 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dr Sujay Kantawala
Counsel For Respondent: Pradip Gharat
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
