Allahabad High Court
ASIFversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to issue a mandamus and instead directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation, directing the passport authority to decide the application in compliance with established guidelines.
Summary
The petitioner, Asif, applied for a passport which the Regional Passport Office, Bareilly, refused to process on the ground of a pending criminal case against him. He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the passport authorities to issue the passport, alleging irreparable loss. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India, holding that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denial of a passport and that the applicant must be given an opportunity to obtain a court order permitting travel. It also noted the Harshit Vaish judgment that a competent court's permission is a prerequisite for passport issuance. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Passport Authority within one month and ordered the authority to decide the application within three months, in accordance with the 1993 notification and the 2024 Office Memorandum. The petition was disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case justifies the refusal to process a passport application.
- Whether a court order permitting travel is a mandatory precondition for passport issuance under the Passports Act and related notifications.
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport issuance
- mandamus
- criminal proceedings
- court permission
- Passports Act
- notification G.S.R. 570(E)
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17468 of 2026
Asif
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Jameel, Zia Uddin
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Manish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of
respondent nos.1 to 3 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for
respondent nos.4 & 5.
3. 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
directing the Passport Authorities i.e. respondents no.2 and 3 to
process the application and issue of the passport of the petitioner
sought vide Application Reference No.(ARN) 26-0057103374 dated
10.03.2026 otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury."
4. The petitioner has applied for issuance of passport. According to the
petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Authority, Regional
Passport Office, Bareilly has neither issued the passport nor has passed any
order for grant of issuance of passport on the ground of pendency of criminal
case against the petitioner.
5. 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
WRIC No. 17468 of 2026
2
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.
6. 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.
7. 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-Regional
Passport Authority, Regional Passport Office, Bareilly 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 of passport in
the light of the aforesaid judgements within the period of three months from
the date of receipt of such representation.
8. 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 year.
9. 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
Checking your session…