Kangana Ranaut approached the Bombay High Court after her application to renew her passport was rejected. The actress stated that the Passport Authority refused to renew her passport due to an FIR registered against her by the Mumbai Police. Reportedly, a bench of Justices PB Varale and SP Tavade adjourned the hearing to June 25 stating that Kangana had failed to implead the Passport Authority as a party in the case.

According to reports, Advocate Rizwan Merchant, who appeared on behalf of the complainant Munnawarali Sayyed, told said that Kangana's application did not contain any order of the Passport Authority that was under challenge. Reportedly, Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, who appeared before the court on Tuesday on behalf of Kangana, told that the rejection was verbal and the Passport Authority didn't issue any order. Siddiquee reportedly said, "As the passport was expiring, we filed an application. While the application was filed, we were verbally told that because an FIR is registered so the passport will not be renewed."

Recommended Read: 'Pure & Pious like Radhe Maa,' says Vikrant Massey teasing Yami Gautam over wedding pictures; Kangana Ranaut quips 'lao meri chappal'

A leading publication's report mentioned that the court asked Siddiquee to present the order. The Bombay High Court also noted that the plea filed by Kangana had her sister Rangoli Chandel's name too. Kangana's advocate explained that the application regarding the passport was only with regards to Kangana and not her sister Rangoli. Reportedly, he assured that the plea will be amended. As per the publication's report, the court further asked, "Which is the competent authority that you have a grievance against? When you have not made the passport authority a party in the petition, then how can we issue a notice to them?"

When Siddiquee said, "They (Passport Authority) say that if you take a NOC from the High Court it can be done,"  the court added, "It is not a case in a police station. You are challenging the passport authority. You need to make them a party."

The bench decided June 25 for the next hearing and told, "It is just a film. The schedule can be changed. First of all, the application is vague. If she was so vigilant, she could have approached the court with all details in advance. It is just a matter of one week, a film production takes over a year. June 25 is the earliest date we can give."

(Source: India Today)