MOHAMMAD RASHIDversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 17956 of 2026

Mohammad Rashid
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Avnish Kumar Singh, Bhishm Pal
                                  Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Surendra Nath
                                  Chauhan

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Nath
Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
following relief;
      "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus
      commanding and directing the respondent no. 02 and 03 to renew the
      Passport No. P4039809 of the petitioner and hand over the same to the
      petitioner expeditiously within the period specified by this Hon'ble
      Court.

      2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus
      commanding and directing the respondent no. 02 to consider and decide
      the application of the petitioner having Application Reference Number :
      26-0058608087 under the provision of Section 5 of Passport Act 1967 as
      per rules for re-issue of passport, which is being numbered as bearing
      File No. LK4077146858626 dated 30.03.2026 which is pending since the
      submission of the application of the petitioner before the respondent no.
      2."

3. The petitioner has applied for renewal of passport. According to
the petitioner, the respondent No. 2/Regional Passport 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
                                                    WRIC No. 17956 of 2026
                               2


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
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
                                                                                        WRIC No. 17956 of 2026
                                                                 3


                                    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 7, 2026
                                    Sachin Mishra




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