# Anubhav Jain v. Union of India & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38881 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anubhav-jain-v-union-of-india-anr-53593
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

legality of impugned order dated 12.06.2019
passed by the respondent no.2.

Headnotes
Passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of
the passport- on the ground of pendency of the
criminal appeal-pending criminal case pertains
to disputes of private or matrimonial in nature-
cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on
the ground of pendency of the criminal appealpassport authority has acted beyond the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-W.P.
disposed. (E-9)
Case Law Cited

## Text

106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was set up on behalf of petitioners as such there
was no option except to decide all the three
appeals which were clubbed and decided together.

11. The perusal of impugned revisional
order further demonstrate that appellate court and
revisional court have properly considered the sale
deed set up by the parties and recorded finding of
fact that sale deed set up by respondent No.4 is
prior to the sale deed set up by petitioners and sale
deed set up by respondent No.4 has been properly
proved as such respondent no.4 was held to be
recorded over 12/44 share of the plot in dispute
which requires no interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

12. It is also material to mention that
original copy of sale deed dated 26.06.1968 has
not been filed by petitioners before Consolidation
authorities as such adverse inference was drawn
by Consolidation authorities. The explanation
given by petitioners for not filing the original copy
of the sale deed dated 26.06.1968 cannot be
accepted in the eye of law and litigation cannot be
sent back before consolidation authorities for
further adjudication of dispute so that litigation
may go on for another 50 years.

13. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, no case for interference
is made out against the impugned orders passed
by Consolidation authorities in the title
proceeding.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 38881 of 2019

Anubhav Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Waseem

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Prabhakar Tripathi

Issue for consideration
Pertains to rejection of issuance of passport;
legality of impugned order dated 12.06.2019
passed by the respondent no.2.

Headnotes
Passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of
the passport- on the ground of pendency of the
criminal appeal-pending criminal case pertains
to disputes of private or matrimonial in nature-
cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on
the ground of pendency of the criminal appealpassport authority has acted beyond the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-W.P.
disposed. (E-9)
Case Law Cited
1.
Vangala
Kasturi
Rangacharyulu
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 3549
2. Basoo Yadav Versus Union of India, 2022 SCC
OnLine All 849

List of Acts
Nil
List of Keywords
7 All. Anubhav Jain Vs. Union of India & Anr.
107
Refuse the renewal of the passport; pendency
of the criminal appeal

Appearance of the parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Waseem
 Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Prabhakar
Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1. Heard Sri Hasan parvej, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar
Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for
Union of India.

2. The matter is being heard after
exchange of affidavits.

3. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 12.06.2019 passed
by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No. 6 to
the writ petition)

II. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondent no. 2 to renew
the Passport No. H4969575 of the
petitioner which has been expired on
06.08.2019
for
which
the
petitioner
submitted online application for renewal of
Passport No. H4969575 dated 16.04.2019
before the respondent no. 2."

4. Upon perusal of the documents, it
appears that by an order dated 12.06.2019, the
grant of passport to the petitioner has been
rejected. The relevant portion of the order is
provided below:

 "Sir,
 Please refer to your letter dated
02.06.2019 regarding clarification given by you
for issuance of passport wherein you have
stated that case pending against you has been
stayed by Hon'able High Court.

In this regard it is informed that as
per section 6(2)(1) of the passport Act, 1967
"The Passport issuing authority shall refuse to
issue a passport or travel documents for visiting
any foreign country if the proceedings in
respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant are pending before
a criminal court in India.

As far as your case is concerned, the
court proceedings as you stated have been
stayed by Hon'able High Court, however stay
order does not mean that the proceedings have
been quashed/suspended or withdrawn. Hence
the criminal proceedings are still pending
against you and therefore Section 6(2) (1) is
applicable in your case.

In view of the aforesaid rules your
application for reissue of your Passport could
not be agreed to until the case is disposed or
Hon'able court gives you permission to travel
abroad/grant of Passport."

5. The criminal proceeding such as
Case No. 1686 of 2018, State Versus Anubhav
Jain and others, arising out of Case Crime No.
0116 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 406
I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Bareilly, has been stayed by this
Hon'ble
High
Court
vide
order
dated
21.08.2018 passed in Application U/S 482 No.
17705 of 2018. After perusal of section 198-A
Cr.P.C. such disputes are of private or
matrimonial in nature.

6. One may place reliance on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 3549, wherein, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the passport
authority cannot refuse the renewal of the
passport on the ground of pendency of the
criminal appeal. For ready reference, the
operative portion of the order is reproduced
herein below.

 "The refusal of a passport can be
only in case where an applicant is
convicted during the period of 5 years
immediately
proceeding
the
date
of
application for an offence involving moral
turpitude and sentence for imprisonment
for not less than two years.

Section 6.2 (f) relates to a
situation where the applicant is facing trial
in a criminal court.

Admittedly,
at
present,
the
conviction of the appellant stands still the
disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence
which he has to undergo is for a period of
one year. The passport authority cannot
refuse the renewal of the passport on the
ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.

The passport authority is directed
to renew the passport of the applicant
without raising the objection relating to the
pendency of the criminal appeal in this
Court. Subject to the other conditions being
fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application
stands disposed of."

7. One may further also look into
the judgment of Allahabad High Court in
Basoo Yadav Versus Union of India,
2022 SCC OnLine All 849, wherein, the
issue has been squarely covered. The
relevant portion of the judgment is
provided below:

"Having heard learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel and after having gone through the
instructions which have been sent by the
Director General of Police, the Court is
definitely of the view that no noncognizable report which was registered
could be taken into cognizance if no
investigation was ordered by the concerned
Magistrate. Even though in the instant
case, whether the passport can be refused
on the basis of the pendency of the criminal
case is not the question involved, we are of
the view that even during the pendency of
any criminal case, passport could be
issued/renewed as per the Government
Order dated 25.8.1993 if the Court passes
orders for that purpose. In the instant case,
we do find that the application of the
petitioner was rejected on the basis of the
two reports of non-cognizable cases namely
NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018.
The Director General of Police has also
given his view that the reports with regard
to the non-cognizable cases could not be
made the basis for rejecting an application
for issuance of passport if they had not
been investigated into.

Under such circumstances, we
issue the following directions :-

 (1) The passport form of the
petitioner for the issuance of a passport be
considered within a period of two weeks
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order before the respondent
no.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow;

(2) Since we are finding that in
quite a few cases the reports of noncognizable cases in which the concerned
Magistrate had not even ordered for
investigation were being taken into account
for rejection of passport, we issue a
direction to the Director General of Police
to instruct his officers to give a report with
regard to the pendency of reports in non-
7 All. Surendra Kumar Vs. Shanti Devi
109
cognizable cases after appropriate and
proper application of mind;

(3)
Outright
the
passport
applications be not rejected under section
6(2)(f) of the Passports Act if orders of the
Court, where the criminal case is pending,
have been passed as per the Government
Order dated 25.8.1993. The Director
General of Police to issue notification in
this regard also.

With these observations, the writ
petition is, accordingly, allowed."

8. In light of the above judgments,
we have no hesitation in holding that in the
present case, the passport authority has
acted beyond the law laid down by the
Hon?ble Supreme Court.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondent no. 2,
Regional Passport Officer, to act in
accordance with law and issue a fresh
passport to the petitioner, if all other
conditions are met, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 109
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5685 of 2024

Surendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Shanti Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Diwakar Pratap Pandey, Uday Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent:
Anand Kumar Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Whether an agreement to sell can be construed
as an instrument securing money or other
property so as to attract the provisions of
Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as
amended and applicable in the State of U.P., is
in for consideration before this Court and if it is
held that an agreement to sell is not an
instrument securing money or other property
then as a corollary whether in a suit for seeking
cancellation of such an agreement to sell, the
court fee payable would be in terms of Article
17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees
Act or as per or Section 7(iv-A) of the Court
Fees Act.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section
7(iv-A) & Article 17(iii) of the Second
Schedule - It cannot be said that an
agreement to sell does not secure either
the money or property for the purposes of
the Court Fees Act - An agreement to sell
may not be an instrument by which a right
in the property is created nor extinguishes
it (as per T.P. Act), but at the same time, it
is an instrument which does bring security
and
certainty
and
it
does
create
obligations which are enforceable in law
based upon which a party can seek an
appropriate relief in a Court of law -
Reference answered.

Held- An 'agreement to sell' will fall within the
meaning of the word 'instrument' 'securing
money or other property' having such value for
the purposes of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court
Fees Act - If a suit falls within Section 7(iv-A) of
the Court Fees Act, consequently, the court fees
payable would be on ad valorem basis taking
note of the explanation appended to Section
7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act. The moment a
suit involves cancellation of either an instrument
or a decree as the case may be and it is
referable to Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees
Act then the fee would necessarily be paid on
ad valorem basis and that would ipso facto
exclude the applicability of Article 17(iii) of the