CHHAIL BIHARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                         WRIT - C No. - 11055 of 2026

Chhail Bihari
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Dinesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

Court No. - 40
                     HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
                     HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.2 of 2026.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.

The present amendment application has been filed on behalf of
applicant/petitioner to correct the description of respondent no.2 in the array
of parties.

The amendment sought is formal in nature, therefore, the amendment
application is allowed.

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner is permitted to carry out the
necessary amendment in the array of parties during the course of the day.

Order on Writ Petition.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for the
following relief:-

     "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the respondents to renew the passport in favour of the
     petitioner forthwith."

3. The petitioner has applied for issuance/renewal of passport. According to
                                                         WRIC No. 11055 of 2026
                                  2

the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Ghaziabad
has neither issued the passport nor has passed any order for grant of
issuance/renewal of passport on the ground of pendency of criminal case
against the petitioner.

4. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of
India and others (Writ-C No. 41540 of 2023, decided on 19.01.2024) has
held that pendency of criminal proceedings, including at the stage of
investigation, does not by itself justify rejection of a passport application,
which must be considered in terms of Notification dated 25.08.1993. It has
further laid down that upon receipt of information regarding pendency of
criminal proceedings from the State authorities, the Regional Passport Office
shall intimate the applicant within one week and grant not less than eight
weeks to obtain permission from the competent court, during which period
the application may be kept pending. Upon submission of such permission,
the passport shall be processed expeditiously and without undue delay,
preferably within one week.

5. Further, in Harshit Vaish Vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal
Revision No. 524 of 2026, decided on 18.03.2026), this Court, taking note of
Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 issued by the Ministry of External
Affairs, has observed that while no separate NOC is required, an order of the
competent court permitting the applicant to travel abroad is a necessary
precondition for issuance of a passport. The trial court may grant or refuse
permission and may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate,
including specification of the duration of travel.

6. In view of the above, since the decision in respect of issuance/renewal of
the passport is to be taken by respondent no.2, accordingly, the petitioner is
permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2-Regional
Passport Officer, Ghaziabad within a period of one month from today. On
filing the said representation, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the
application of petitioner for issuance/renewal of passport in the light of the
aforesaid judgements within the period of three months from the date of
receipt of such representation.

7. It is clarified that this Court does not dilute or depart from the mandatory
                                                                                              WRIC No. 11055 of 2026
                                                                       3

                                    framework contained in Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25 August 1993
                                    and the clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 issued under
                                    Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, including the stipulation that, where
                                    no specific period is fixed by the competent Court, the passport shall be
                                    issued for a period of one year.

                                    8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed off.

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Sattyarth
                                                                       (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad