Allahabad High Court
VEERBAL SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Pendency of criminal proceedings alone does not justify denial of a passport; the passport may be issued after the applicant obtains a court order permitting travel, and the petition is therefore disposed.
Summary
The petitioner applied for renewal of passport No.L9568534, but the Regional Passport Officer in Lucknow refused to process the application citing a pending criminal case against him. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the officer to consider his claim and re‑issue the passport. The 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 a court order. It also relied on Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P., which affirmed that a court’s permission to travel abroad is a prerequisite for passport issuance. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Passport Officer within one month and ordered the officer to decide the application within three months, in accordance with the 1993 Notification and the 2024 Office Memorandum under the Passports Act. The petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Pendency of criminal proceedings as a ground for rejecting a passport application
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing issuance of a passport in such circumstances
- Whether the applicant must obtain a court order permitting travel before a passport can be issued
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport renewal
- criminal proceedings
- mandamus
- Passports Act
- court permission
- regional passport officer
- travel abroad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17476 of 2026
Veerbal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mir Sayed
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sarveshwar Lal
Srivastava
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
Order on Order Sheet.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of
respondent no.2 in the array of parties during the course of the day.
Order on Writ Petition.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel
for State-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/directing the respondents/authorities/specially the
respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and re-issue a
passport in favour of the petitioner in respect of application reference
No.26-0050655150 dated 14.01.2026 and Passport No.L9568534
issuance dated 16.05.2014 forthwith in accordance with law."
3. The petitioner has applied for issuance/renewal of passport. According to
the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Lucknow 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
WRIC No. 17476 of 2026
2
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, Regional Passport Office, Lucknow 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 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 year.
WRIC No. 17476 of 2026
3
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
Checking your session…