GULAM RASULversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - C No. - 18579 of 2026

Gulam Rasul
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
Union Of India And Another
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                  :   Sapana Singh, Vikas Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   A.S.G.I.

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

1. Ms. Jyotsna Srivastava, Advocate, has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of
respondents today in Court, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jyotsna Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. 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 particularly respondent no.2 to
         issue the passport normal pursuance to the application dated
         03.12.2024 of the petitioner bearing Application Reference
         No.BL1060429798224, ignoring the criminal case bearing
         Case Crime No.0193 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504,
         506, 160, 34, 336 I.P.C., Police Station Shahbad, District
         Rampur, registered/pending against the petitioner.."
4. The petitioner has applied for issuance of passport. According to the
petitioner, the respondent No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport
Office, Bareilly Region, Bareilly 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.
5. 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
                                                                                              WRIC No. 18579 of 2026
                                                                       2

                                    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.
                                    6. 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.
                                    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-Regional
                                    Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Bareilly Region, Bareilly 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.
                                    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.
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    NS
                                                                       (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad