ROHIT PALversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 17988 of 2026

Rohit Pal
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                       :    Munna Tiwari
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to correct the
description of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the array of parties during the
course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anju Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following substantial
relief;

      "I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus
      directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to issue passport to
      petitioner."

4. The petitioner has applied for issuance 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 case against the petitioner.
5. 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
                                                                                              WRIC No. 17988 of 2026
                                                                       2

                                    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.
                                    6. 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.
                                    7. 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.
                                    8. 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.
                                    9. 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