Allahabad High Court
FAIYAZ HUSAINversusUNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHER
- Decided
Holding
A stay of the summoning order does not amount to a 'No Objection' certificate; an explicit NOC must be obtained from the criminal court.
Summary
The petitioner, Faiyaz Husain, challenged an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly, which stayed a summoning order in Criminal Case No.1523 of 2025 but failed to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for obtaining a passport and travelling abroad. The Court examined the applicable notifications issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, which mandate an explicit NOC from the criminal court before a passport can be granted. It held that a mere stay of the summoning order does not satisfy the statutory requirement of a NOC. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to re‑apply to the magistrate for a proper NOC within two weeks, after which the passport officer may process the passport application. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a stay of a summoning order by a criminal court constitutes a 'No Objection' certificate under the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Home Affairs notifications for passport issuance.
Subjects
- passport
- No Objection Certificate
- criminal proceedings
- travel abroad
- Ministry of External Affairs
- Ministry of Home Affairs
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35790 of 2026
Faiyaz Husain
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 5 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Singh, Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Vijay Chandra
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Chandra,
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner is basically aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly in Criminal Case No.1523 of 2025 in which
instead of issuing a no objection certificate to the petitioner to travel
abroad and to be possessed of valid passport though he directed staying
the summoning order.
3. In our considered view under the relevant notification issued by the
Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Ministry of Home, a person
seeking grant of a passport is required to have "No Objection" from the
court of criminal law where the trial is going on, so as to enable him to
travel abroad and also to possess a valid passport. A mere staying of the
summoning order will not count for necessary "No Objection" as is
contemplated under the relevant notification.
4. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to again approach the learned
Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly to obtain the necessary no objection by
moving application, and if he does so within two weeks from today, the
criminal court will grant necessary "No Objection", if there is no other
legal impediment, permitting the petitioner to travel abroad and also
permit him to possess a valid passport. After such "No Objection" is
allowed by the learned Magistrate, petitioner would further be
approaching the Regional Passport Officer for grant of passport in the
WRIC No. 35790 of 2026
2
light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rahimuddin vs. Union
of India & Another (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:181505-DB) and
recently in the case of Wajiruddin Khan v. Union of India & 2 Others
(Neutral Citation No. 2026:AHC:138176-DB) and the Regional
Passport Officer would be disposing of the application within further six
weeks' time.
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 16, 2026
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…