Allahabad High Court
AFTAB ALAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself warrant denial of a passport; the applicant must be allowed to make a fresh representation and the passport officer must decide within the time‑frames prescribed by the 1993 Notification and the 2024 Office Memorandum.
Summary
Aftab Alam applied for renewal of his passport but the Regional Passport Officer in Lucknow refused to issue it, citing a pending criminal case against him. He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to re‑issue the passport. The Court noted that, as held in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India, mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denial of a passport and that the procedure laid down in the 1993 Notification and the 2024 Office Memorandum must be followed. The Court also referred to Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P., which requires a court order permitting travel before a passport can be issued. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Regional Passport Officer within one month and ordered the officer to decide the application within three months, in compliance with the statutory framework. The petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of a criminal case justifies rejection of a passport application under the Passports Act, 1967.
- Whether the authorities must follow the procedures prescribed in Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25‑08‑1993 and the Office Memorandum dated 06‑12‑2024 in such cases.
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport renewal
- criminal proceedings
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Passports Act
- notification
- travel abroad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17897 of 2026
Aftab Alam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Dubey, Vipul Kumar
Dubey
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 Rajesh Tripathi, 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 re-issue the passport of the
petitioner within a stipulated period or as may be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer an
irreparable loss and injury."
3. The petitioner has applied for re-issuance/renewal of passport. According
to the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has neither issued the
passport nor has passed any order for grant of 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
WRIC No. 17897 of 2026
2
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 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, 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…