Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD AKARAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself warrant denial of a passport; the applicant must obtain a court order permitting travel, and the petition for mandamus was not entertained.
Summary
The petitioner applied for renewal of his passport, but the Regional Passport Officer in Lucknow refused to issue it, citing a pending criminal case against him. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the officer to re‑issue the passport. The Court referred to its earlier judgment 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 a chance to obtain a court order permitting travel. It also relied on Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P., which emphasized that an order from a competent court is a pre‑condition for passport issuance under the 2024 Office Memorandum. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Passport Officer within one month and the officer to decide the application within three months, in accordance with Notification G.S.R. 570(E) (1993) and the Passports Act, 1967. The petition was disposed without granting mandamus.
Issues considered
- Does the pendency of a criminal case automatically justify rejection of a passport application?
- Is a writ of mandamus appropriate to compel the Regional Passport Officer to issue the passport?
- What procedural steps must be followed under the 1993 Notification and the 2024 Office Memorandum before a passport can be issued?
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport renewal
- criminal proceedings
- mandamus
- Passports Act
- court permission
- notification 1993
- office memorandum 2024
- regional passport officer
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17919 of 2026
Mohammad Akaram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Ram Kinkar Shukla
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kishor Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents No.3 & 4.
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 respondent No.2 to reissue the passport to the petitioner in pursuance
of online application No. 24-0017562300 dated 25.01.2024 within
stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) issue any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case.
iii) award the cost of the petition."
3. The petitioner has applied for renewal of passport. According to the
petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport
Office, 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
WRIC No. 17919 of 2026
2
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 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, 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
SS
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…