DHARMENDRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                          WRIT - C No. - 18855 of 2026

Dharmendra
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
Union Of India And 4 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Ajit Kumar Saroj, Krishan Dev Mishra
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, Sri Manish Kumar Niranjan,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel
for respondent nos.4 & 5.

2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for the
following relief:-

         "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus
         commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to renew the Passport
         No.P2654380 of the petitioner and handover the same to the
         petitioner expeditiously within the period specified by this Hon'ble
         Court."

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 renewal 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
                                                                                              WRIC No. 18855 of 2026
                                                                       2

                                    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 renewal 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 renewal 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 14, 2026
                                    Sattyarth
                                                                       (Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad