Allahabad High Court
SHIVAM YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself warrant denial of a passport and that the petitioner must obtain court permission before issuance, thus the writ petition was disposed.
Summary
Shivam Yadav applied for a passport but the Regional Passport Officer in Lucknow refused to process it, citing a pending criminal case against him. He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to issue the passport without requiring a No‑Objection Certificate, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India. The High Court noted that, per that decision and the Office Memorandum of 06‑12‑2024, mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify denial of a passport; instead, the applicant must obtain permission from a competent court. The Court also referred to Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P., which held that a court order permitting travel is a prerequisite, not a separate NOC. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Passport Officer within a month and ordered the officer to decide the application within three months, disposing of the writ petition without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings alone justifies rejection of a passport application
- Whether a No‑Objection Certificate is required for passport issuance in such circumstances
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing issuance of the passport
Legislation cited
- Passports Act, 1967 — s. 22
Subjects
- passport issuance
- criminal proceedings
- mandamus
- No‑Objection Certificate
- Passports Act
- Section 22
- notification 1993
- court permission
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18554 of 2026
Shivam Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nimesh Kumar Shukla, Vinod Kumar
Tirpathi
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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel for
respondent no.3.
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
commanding the respondents to process and issuance the new
passport to the petitioner in accordance with law, without
insisting on any NOC, in view of the judgement of Pawan
Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India.."
3. The petitioner has applied for issuance of passport. According to the
petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer/Superintendent
Passport Officer, U.P. at 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. 18554 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/Superintendent Passport Officer, U.P. at 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 12, 2026
NS
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…