Allahabad High Court
ABDUL HAMEEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not, by itself, justify denial of a passport; the applicant must obtain permission from a competent court and the passport authority must decide the application within the time‑frames prescribed by law.
Summary
Abdul Hameed filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, and the Judicial Magistrate, Farenda, to re‑issue his passport and NOC, alleging that his application was rejected solely on the basis of a pending criminal case. The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India, which held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denial of a passport and that the applicant must be given eight weeks to obtain court permission. It also relied on Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P., which clarified that a court order permitting travel is a prerequisite for passport issuance, while a separate NOC is not required. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the passport officer within one month and mandated the officer to decide the application within three months, in accordance with the 1993 passport notification and the 2024 Ministry of External Affairs memorandum. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case justifies rejection of a passport application under the Passports Act, 1967.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer to re‑issue the passport and the Judicial Magistrate to issue an NOC.
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport issuance
- criminal proceedings
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Passports Act
- NOC
- court permission
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16817 of 2026
Abdul Hameed
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Muhammad Azam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, A.S.G.I.,
C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kr. Singh
Paliwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 3.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
following relief;
"i. Reissue/renewed a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing to the respondents/authorities specifically
respondent no. 2 and 3 to reissue/renewed a Passport for travelling in
the favour of petitioner accordance with law in respect of Application
applied dated 11.01.2026, Application Reference No. (ARN)
260050335872 and File No. LK1076784117826.
ii. Reissue/renewed a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the learned Judicial Magistrate Farenda,
District Maharajganj to reissue/renewed the N.O.C. certificate in the
name of petitioner for issuance of Passport in the name of petitioner."
3. The petitioner has applied for re-issuance of passport. According
to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2/Regional Passport Officer,
Lucknow has neither issued the passport nor has passed any order for
grant of issuance of passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal
case against the petitioner.
4. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v.
Union of India and others (Writ-C No. 41540 of 2023, decided on
WRIC No. 16817 of 2026
2
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 v. 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 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 within a period of one month from today. On filing the said
representation, respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the
application for issuance of passport to the petitioner 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 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
WRIC No. 16817 of 2026
3
year.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed
off.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 7, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…