Allahabad High Court
NIZAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to grant mandamus and instead directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice, after which the passport officer must decide the application within a stipulated period.
Summary
The petitioner, Nizam, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, to issue his passport within a court‑specified time. The respondents, Union of India and the Regional Passport Officer, submitted instructions indicating that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner and that a notice had been issued to him on 06‑04‑2026. The Court allowed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice within two weeks and directed the passport officer to decide the matter within three weeks, applying the law as articulated in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India. No immediate order for passport issuance was granted. The petition was thereafter disposed of finally.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the Regional Passport Officer to grant a passport when criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to respond to the notice before any decision on passport issuance
Subjects
- passport
- mandamus
- pending criminal case
- writ petition
- regional passport officer
- procedural fairness
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16754 of 2026
Nizam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashiq Ali, Mohd. Atif
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Gyan Prakash Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the
following prayer:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the Regional Passport officer, Lucknow the respondent no. 2 to issue the
passport within the time specify by the court.
2. Issue any other writ, order or direction, to which the petitioner found
entitle under the circumstances of the case."
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, counsel for the respondent
Shri Gyan Prakash Singh, placed before this Court instructions dated
15.09.2026 under the signature of the Respondent No.2 today in the
Court, the same is taken on record.
3. It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that there are pendency of the
two criminal cases against the petitioner and a notice was issued to him
on 06.04.2026, copy of which is appended along-with the instructions.
Though the mode of service of the aforesaid notice has not been stated in
the aforesaid instructions.
4. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, counsel for
the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the aforesaid notice
before the Respondent No.2 namely Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Vipin Khnad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow within a period of
WRIC No. 16754 of 2026
2
two weeks' from today. In case it is so, the Respondent No.2 will pass
appropriate order on the same, strictly in accordance with law taken into
consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pawan
Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India and 2 Others, Supreme (All) 1870
, most expeditiously and positively within a period of three weeks from
the date of submission of reply before him.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
September 16, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…