TALAT PARVEENversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 17847 of 2026

Talat Parveen
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Danish, Rajiv Sisodia
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Mishra, C.S.C.

Court No. - 40
                     HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
                     HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
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
         to direct respondent no.2 to renew passport no.H5438844 which
         was valid up to 29.7.2019."
3. The petitioner has applied for renewal issue of her passport. According
to the petitioner, the respondent No.2/Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly
has neither renewed 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
                                                                                             WRIC No. 17847 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    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 a
                                    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.


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




Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad