EKABAL AHAMADversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 17494 of 2026

Ekabal Ahamad
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)


                                      Versus



Union Of India And 3 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)             :   Sarfaraz Ahmad, Shazia Ahmadi
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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tripathi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
following relief;

      "i. Issue order or a direction to the respondents/authorities/specifically
      the respondent no.2 issue a fresh passport in favour of the petitioner in
      respect of application ARN No. 25-0075831078 forthwith in accordance
      with law, so that justice be done, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer
      irreparable loss and injury."

3. The petitioner has applied for issue of passport. According to the
petitioner, the respondent No. 2/Regional 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
19.01.2024) has held that pendency of criminal proceedings,
including at the stage of investigation, does not by itself justify
                                                    WRIC No. 17494 of 2026
                             2

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
year.
                                                                                     WRIC No. 17494 of 2026
                                                                3

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


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




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad