Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry ... on 30 January, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6361-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 800 of 2025
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry External Affairs New Delhi And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Kumar Kaushal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel and D.G.S.I. assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 and 2.
2. Yet again, a case where Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow has declined to issue the passport on the ground that though permission has been granted by the trial court where criminal case is pending against the petitioner on 11.12.2024 for issuance of a passport, there is no permission to the petitioner for going abroad which is required in view of the Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019. This issue has been considered by us in our order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Writ-C No.10199 of 2024 [Shakeel Ahmed vs. Union of India & Anr.] which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & D.S.G.I. assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
The petitioner had applied for renewal of his passport, however, as he had a criminal case pending trial before a Court of criminal jurisdiction i.e. C.J.M., Lucknow, therefore, he applied for permission/NOC in keeping with the notification of the Central Government referable to the Passport Act, 1967 and the law declared in this regard by the Courts. The copy of the said application is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. The said application was rejected on 16.10.2023 by the CJM, Lucknow on the ground that the said Court had not imposed any embargo or prohibition in issuance of the Passport, therefore, there is no necessity of granting any such permission or issuing any such order. The said order was challenged in revision before the District Judge. The revision also came to be dismissed on the same ground vide order dated 29.11.2023. Both the orders apparently were passed in ignorance of the notifications issued by the Central Government under the Passport Act, 1967 under which such permission/ NOC is required to be taken from the Court where the trial is pending.
This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with in a catena of decisions viz Writ Petition No.31723 (M/B) of 2018 'Salim Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ-C No.8621 of 2022 'Shiv Shankar vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ-C No.3617 of 2022; Smt. Rashmi Kapoor vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ-C No.8874 of 2024 'Shah Alam vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ-C No.5587 of 2024; Umapati vs. Union of India & Ors. and Writ - C No. 10419 of 2024; Amit Mehrotra @ Titu Mehrotra Vs. Union of India and Ors. Therefore, apparently both the impugned orders are bad in law. They are, accordingly, quashed. As a consequent to it as the petitioner is not at fault, therefore, the order of Passport Officer closing the case of the petitioner vide his order dated 01.02.2024 on the ground that the petitioner could not obtain the NOC/ permission in spite of sufficient time can also not be sustained. The petitioner can not be penalized for somebody else's fault, therefore, the said order of the Regional Passport Officer is also quashed. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to consider the application of the petitioner which stands revived in view of our order herein and pass a fresh order thereon granting or refusing the NOC/ permission in the light of the relevant notifications and the judgments of this Court which shall be brought to the notice of the Court below.
Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India shall provide a copy of the relevant notifications to the petitioner's counsel to facilitate aforesaid exercise.
The trial Court is directed to take a decision on the application afresh within three weeks of submission of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. "
3. In this case also, if any application for clarification or fresh application is filed seeking permission to go abroad then the court below shall consider the same in the light of language used in the Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 and our order quoted hereinabove and shall pass a reasoned order ignoring unnecessary technicalities within three weeks of submission of a certified copy of this order.
4. This petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 30.1.2025
Shanu/-
