Allahabad High Court
ADITYA SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself justify denial of a passport; the applicant must obtain a court permission and the passport should be processed thereafter.
Summary
The petitioner applied for renewal of his passport, but the Regional Passport Officer in Lucknow refused to issue it on the ground of a pending criminal case against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to 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 permitting travel. It also relied on Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P., noting that a court permission is a prerequisite for passport issuance under the 2024 Office Memorandum. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Regional Passport Officer and ordered the respondents to decide the application within three months, while affirming the applicability of Notification G.S.R. 570(E) (1993) and the 2024 memorandum. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case justifies rejection of a passport application
- Whether a court order permitting travel is a mandatory precondition for passport issuance
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing issuance of the passport
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport renewal
- mandamus
- criminal proceedings
- court permission
- Passports Act
- notification 1993
- office memorandum 2024
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17655 of 2026
Aditya Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ved Mani Tiwari, learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for the
following main relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to issue a passport to the petitioner"
3. The petitioner has applied for renewal/re-issuance of passport. According
to the petitioner, the respondent No.3-Regional Passport Officer, Passport
Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has neither issued the
passport nor has passed any order for grant of renewal/re-issuance 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
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.
WRIC No. 17655 of 2026
2
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 of the
passport is to be taken by respondent no.2, accordingly, the petitioner is
permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3-Regional
Passport Officer, Passport Bhawan, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, 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 of passport 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed off.
May 6, 2026
NS
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…