ANKIT KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 17749 of 2026

Ankit Kumar
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union Of India And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)             :     Rajesh, Sunil Kumar Pathak
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 Ajay Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
following relief;
      "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
      commanding and directing the respondents to issue the Passport of the
      petitioner forthwith."

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
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
                                                                                        WRIC No. 17749 of 2026
                                                                 2


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


                                                                 (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Sachin Mishra




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