# Mohd. Hasan v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6581 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-hasan-v-u-o-i-anr-52558
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India ,
1950 - Article 226 -order of the Magistrate
denying renewal of passport on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction challenged
whether the petitioner could renew his
passport
despite
pending
criminal
proceedings-notification of Government of
India
dated
25.08.1993-Office
Memorandum
dated
10.10.2019-no
restriction to the learned trial court to
direct for grant of permission for renewal
of passport-citizens of country entitled to
passport-fundament right under Article
19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India-
petition allowed. (Paras 8 and 9)

HELD:
After considering the arguments as advanced by
learned counsel for the parties as well as after
perusal of record, this Court finds that Under
Article
19(1)(d)
and
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India, the citizens of the country
are entitled for passport. In Maneka Gandhi Vs
U.O.I. 1978 (1) SCC 248, the Apex Court has
held that having passport is a fundamental right
of the citizen of India and a citizen can not be
deprived of such fundamental right.... (Para 8)

Thus, this Court after considering the aforesaid
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra) is of the view
that right to travel abroad is a part of the
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and in
addition thereto a careful reading of provisions
of the Passport Act and the Notification dated
25.08.1993 alongwith the Office Memorandum
dated 10.10.2019 in the light of it's legislative
backgrounds as mentioned above, it is clear that
passport or travel document of a person, who is
facing trial can be refused by the authority
concerned during pendency of his criminal case,
but there is no statutory bar for giving no
objection by the court concerned. No hard and
fast straight jacket formula can be laid down
regarding issuance of permission or giving no
objection by the court concerned for issuance of
passport. It is always discretion of the court
concerned and depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case, act and conduct of
the accused as well as nature of alleged
offence committed by him/her and stage of
trial, etc. Some time on account of enmity or ill
will one party enmesh the other party in a
frivolous criminal case to settle his personal
score, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is
necessary to consider all aspects of the matter
and surrounding circumstances while granting
or refusing the no objection for renewal or
reissue of passport or travel documents by the
court
concerned
or
by
the
authorities
concerned and the trial in the above case is
not likely to conclude very soon. These were
relevant factors to be considered by the
learned Trial Court while passing the impugned
order.
9 All. Mohd. Hasan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1463
The learned trial court had completely ignored
the Notification issued by Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993 as well as
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by
the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of
India, New Delhi (referred above) while passing
the impugned order for grant permission for
renewal/re-issue
of
passport,
thus,
the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of
law, therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside/reversed. (Para 9)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. 1978 (1) SCC 248

## Text

1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Act, 1951. The trial of the election
petition is provided under Section 86 of the
Act, 1951. The Act specifically provides
that if an election petition does not comply
with the provisions of Section 81 or Section
82 or Section 117 of it, the High Court shall
dismiss it.

22. In view of the reasons as stated
above, this Court comes to a conclusion
that the present election petition is barred
by Section 81 read with Section 86 of the
Act, 1951 and is liable to be dismissed. It is
thus ordered to be dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6581 of 2024

Mohd. Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Salman Abbas

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India ,
1950 - Article 226 -order of the Magistrate
denying renewal of passport on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction challenged
whether the petitioner could renew his
passport
despite
pending
criminal
proceedings-notification of Government of
India
dated
25.08.1993-Office
Memorandum
dated
10.10.2019-no
restriction to the learned trial court to
direct for grant of permission for renewal
of passport-citizens of country entitled to
passport-fundament right under Article
19(1) (d) of the Constitution of India-
petition allowed. (Paras 8 and 9)

HELD:
After considering the arguments as advanced by
learned counsel for the parties as well as after
perusal of record, this Court finds that Under
Article
19(1)(d)
and
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India, the citizens of the country
are entitled for passport. In Maneka Gandhi Vs
U.O.I. 1978 (1) SCC 248, the Apex Court has
held that having passport is a fundamental right
of the citizen of India and a citizen can not be
deprived of such fundamental right.... (Para 8)

Thus, this Court after considering the aforesaid
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Maneka Gandhi (Supra) is of the view
that right to travel abroad is a part of the
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and in
addition thereto a careful reading of provisions
of the Passport Act and the Notification dated
25.08.1993 alongwith the Office Memorandum
dated 10.10.2019 in the light of it's legislative
backgrounds as mentioned above, it is clear that
passport or travel document of a person, who is
facing trial can be refused by the authority
concerned during pendency of his criminal case,
but there is no statutory bar for giving no
objection by the court concerned. No hard and
fast straight jacket formula can be laid down
regarding issuance of permission or giving no
objection by the court concerned for issuance of
passport. It is always discretion of the court
concerned and depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case, act and conduct of
the accused as well as nature of alleged
offence committed by him/her and stage of
trial, etc. Some time on account of enmity or ill
will one party enmesh the other party in a
frivolous criminal case to settle his personal
score, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is
necessary to consider all aspects of the matter
and surrounding circumstances while granting
or refusing the no objection for renewal or
reissue of passport or travel documents by the
court
concerned
or
by
the
authorities
concerned and the trial in the above case is
not likely to conclude very soon. These were
relevant factors to be considered by the
learned Trial Court while passing the impugned
order.
9 All. Mohd. Hasan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1463
The learned trial court had completely ignored
the Notification issued by Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993 as well as
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by
the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of
India, New Delhi (referred above) while passing
the impugned order for grant permission for
renewal/re-issue
of
passport,
thus,
the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of
law, therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside/reversed. (Para 9)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. 1978 (1) SCC 248

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Salman Abbas, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Sr. Advocate
and Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned
counsel for the Union of India and Sri
Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for
the State and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed seeking following main reliefs:-

"i.
Issue
Writ,
Order
and
direction in any nature of certiorari to
quash/set aside the impugned order dated
08.08.2024 passed by learned Court of
Additional Civil Judge / Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Lucknow
in Criminal Case No.37328 of 2018; State
Vs. Shahid Husain alias Shanne and Ors.
arising out of Case Crime No.458 of 2016,
under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Thakurganj,
District
Lucknow for securing the interest of justice,
which is contained in as Annexure No.1.

ii.
Issue
Writ,
Order
and
direction in any nature of Mandamus
directing the Opposite Parties to consider
the case of the petitioner and issue the
passport to the petitioner irrespective of
Case Crime No.458 of 2016, under Section
420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station
Thakurganj, District Lucknow for securing
the interest of justice. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a Passport was issued to the
petitioner by the Passport Office, Lucknow
bearing Passport No. Z267244 which was
valid from 26.09.2012 till 25.09.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that an application was
filed by the petitioner before the learned
Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Lucknow
for grant of permission for renewal of
passport, which was rejected by means of
order dated 08.08.2024 observing therein
that this Court has no jurisdiction for
granting the permission of renewal of
passport. He further submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in
F.I.R. No.458 of 2016, under Section 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station
Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

5. In support of his argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the notification of Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993,
which is being quoted hereunder:-

"G.S.R. 570(E).--In exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (a) of
Section 22 of the Pas
sports Act 1967
(15 of 1967) and in supersession of the
notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R.
298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the
Central Government, being of the opinion
that it is necessary in public interest to do
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so, hereby exempts citizens of India against
whom proceedings in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed by them
are pending before a criminal court in
India and who produce orders from the
court concerned permitting them to depart
from India, from the operation of the
provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2)
of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the
following conditions, namely:-

(a) the passport to be issued to
every such citizen shall be issued -

(i) for the period specified in
order of the court referred to above, if the
court specified a period for which the
passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the
issue of the passport for the travel abroad
is specified in such order, the passport
shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
less than one year, but does not specify the
period of validity of the passport, the
passport shall be issued for one year; or

(iv)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding one year, and does not specify
the validity of the passport, then the
passport shall be issued for the period of
travel abroad specified in the order;

(b) any passport issued in terms
of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further
renewed fr one year at a time, provided the
applicant has not travelled abroad for the
period sanctioned by the court; and
provided further that, in the meantime, the
order of the court is not cancelled or
modified.

(c) any passport issued in terms
of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only
on the basis f a fresh court order specifying
a further period of validity of the passport
or specifying a period for travel abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an
undertaking in writing to the passportissuing authority that he shall, if required
by the court concerned, appear before it at
any time during the continuance in force of
the passport so issued."

6. Thus, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 08.08.2024 is totally illegal, perverse
and arbitrary as the same is passed without
application of judicial mind and also
without considering the notification of
Ministry of External Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi, therefore, the same is
liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the Union of India has placed a
notification of the Government of India
dated 25.08.1993 (which has already been
quoted above) and an Office Memorandum
dated 10.10.2019 (which is being quoted
hereunder) issued by the Ministry of
External Affairs, Government of India,
New Delhi. He has also placed an order
passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court
dated 02.02.2024 passed in Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.839 of 2024
and submits that there is no restriction to
the learned trial court to direct for grant of
permission for renewal of passport. He
further submits that as per aforesaid
notification and order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the impugned
order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned
Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.24,
Lucknow, on its face appears to be passed
without application of judicial mind and
without
considering
the
aforesaid
notification. Thus, the impugned order is
liable to be quashed and authorities may be
directed to consider the case for renewal of
his passport. The Office Memorandum
9 All. Mohd. Hasan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1465
dated
10.10.2019
is
being
quoted
hereunder:
***
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019
issued by the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India, New
Delhi:-

No. VI/401/1/5/2019
Government of India
Ministry of External Affairs
PSP Division
Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg
New Delhi, the l0th October 2019
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Issue of passports to applicants
against whom criminal cases are pending
before a court of law in India.

Reference
is
invited
to
Notification
No.
GSR
570(E)
dated
25.8.1993 regarding issuance of passports
to
applicants
who
have
criminal
proceedings pending against them and
whose applications would attract the
provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2)
of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

2. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993 is
reproduced below for reference:

"G.S.R. 570(E).--In exercise of
the powers conferred by clause (a) of
Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of
1967)
and
in
supersession
of
the
notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R.
298(E), dated the 14th April, 1976, the
Central Government, being of the opinion
that it is necessary in public interest to do
so, hereby exempts citizens of India against
whom proceedings in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed by them
are pending before a criminal court in
India and who produce orders from the
court concerned permitting them to depart
from India, from the operation of the
provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2)
of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the
following conditions, namely:-

(a) the passport to be issued to
every such citizen shall be issued -

(i) for the period specified in
order of the court referred to above, if the
court specified a period for which the
passport has to be issued; or

(ii) if no period either for the
issue of the passport for the travel abroad
is specified in such order, the passport
shall be issued for a period of one year;

(iii)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
less than one year, but does not specify the
period of validity of the passport, the
passport shall be issued for one year; or

(iv)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period
exceeding one year, and does not specify
the validity of the passport, then the
passport shall be issued for the period of
travel abroad specified in the order;

(b) any passport issued in terms
of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can be further
renewed fr one year at a time, provided the
applicant has not travelled abroad for the
period sanctioned by the court; and
provided further that, in the meantime, the
order of the court is not cancelled or
modified.

(c) any passport issued in terms
of (a)(i) above can be further renewed only
on the basis f a fresh court order specifying
a further period of validity of the passport
or specifying a period for travel abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an
undertaking in writing to the passportissuing authority that he shall, if required
by the court concerned, appear before it at
any time during the continuance in force of
the passport so issued."

3. It may be noted that applicants may
be refused passports only on grounds
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned under Section 6(2) of the
Passports Act, 1967. Section 6(2)(f) of the
Act states that the passport authority shall
refuse to issue a passport or travel
document to an applicant on the ground
that proceedings in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed by the
applicant arc pending before a criminal
court in India. GSR 570(E) dated 25.8.1993
was introduced to give relief to such
applicants
against
whom
criminal
proceedings are pending before any Court
of law in India but who may need to travel
abroad for some urgent business. With an
undertaking under GSR 570(E) and an
order from the Court, an applicant could be
issued a short validity passport of one year
validity for the period specified by the
Court.

4. It has been noticed that there are an
increasing number of references being
received regarding passport applications
attracting Section 6(2)(f). It has also been
brought to Ministry's notice that there are a
number of complex issues involved while
processing such applications. During the
proceedings in a recent court case, the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (CRL)
No. 2844/2018 /CRL.M.A. 48674/2018 has
directed that guidelines be issued by the
Ministry
reiterating
the
procedure
for
processing
of
such
applications
and
emphasizing that such applications need to be
processed with due care and diligence.

5. In view of the above, the following
instructions
may
be
adopted
while
processing the passport applications in
respect of those applicants who may have
criminal proceedings pending before a
criminal court in India:

(i) The provisions of GSR 570
(E) may be strictly applied in all case. GSR
570 (E) is a statutory notification and
hence, forms part of the Rules. It is to be
noted that as per Section 5 (2) of the
Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority
shall be order in writing take a decision
whether to issue or refuse a passport, after
making such inquiry, if any, as it may
consider necessary. Moreover, Section 7 of
the Passports Act, provides that a passport
or travel document may be issued for a
shorter period than the prescribed period if
the passport authority, for reasons to be
communicated in writing to the applicant,
considers in any case that the passport or
travel document should be issued for a
shorter period. Rule 12 of the Passport
Rules, 1980 only states that an ordinary
passport shall be in force for a period of 10
years which implies that an ordinary
passport cannot be issued beyond a period
of 10 years.

(ii) Whenever an applicant is
submitting a 'No Objection Certificate'
(NOC) from a Court of law in India, the
applicant
should
be
advised
that
undertaking as per GSR 570(E) should be
complete in all respects and should mention
all the pending criminal cases against the
applicant. The undertaking will have a not
clearly stating that if any false or
incomplete information is submitted by an
applicant, then his passport application is
liable to be rejected.

(iii) Extant instructions clearly
lay down that such applications should be
processed on pre- Police Verification (PV)
mode. "Pre-PV" would be mandatory in all
cases of applications submitted with GSR
570(E) to ensure that the undertaking
submitted by the applicant is properly
matched with the criminal cases mentioned
in the Police Verification Report (PVR).
Hence, such applications should not be
accepted
under
Tatkaal
nor
such
applications be moved to "post-PV" mode
9 All. Mohd. Hasan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1467
or
"No-PV"
mode
without
proper
justification and approval to be recorded in
writing.

(iv)
If
an
undertaking
is
incomplete or misleading and the applicant
is found to have suppressed details of other
criminal cases against the applicant, a
Show Cause Notice should be issued to the
applicant and action initiated against that
applicant as per provisions of Section 12 of
the Passports Act, 1967. If information that
an applicant has obtained a passport by
making
a
false
submission
or
by
suppressing material facts comes to light
after the passport has been issued, the
passport may be impounded or revoked as
per provision of Section 10 (3) (b) of the
Passports Act, 1967 after following the due
procedure.

(v) In case where the first police
verification (PV) is 'Adverse', secondary
police verification may be generated. While
a secondary PV is generated, it should be
accompanied by a detailed letter seeking
clarification regarding the pending criminal
cases against the applicant and the status of
these
cases.
Apart
from
generating
secondary PVR, the passport officers may,
if considered necessary, call for discreet
enquiry through the police authorities by
sending the court order submitted by the
applicant or even seek verification from
other government agencies/departments, as
the case may be.

(vi) In case where the secondary
Police Verification is also 'Adverse', it may
be examined whether the details brought
out in the police report match the
undertaking submitted by the applicant. It
may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and
cases under investigation do not come
under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and
that criminal proceedings would only be
considered pending against an applicant if a
case has been registered before any Court
of law and the court has taken cognizance
of the same.

(vii) If the details given in the
police report and the undertaking submitted
by the applicant are matching, then the 'No
Objection Certificate' issued by a Court of
law submitted by the applicant would take
precedence over any 'Adverse' report
submitted by the police. In such cases, the
'Adverse' report may be overruled with the
written approval of the Passport Officer.

(viii) If the details given in the
PVR and the undertaking submitted by the
applicant are at variance, then a notice may
be issued to the applicant calling for
clarification and advising the applicant to
submit details of all pending criminal cases
as well as to submit a revised No Objection
Certificate (NOC).

(ix) If it is brought to the notice
of the authority that an applicant has
criminal
proceedings
arrayed
against
applicant before several courts of law, then
the applicant may be advised to get NOC
from all the concerned court (s). Normally,
the Court Order would make a mention of
the cases pending against the applicant as
well as the prayer made by the applicant.
This may be examined along with the
undertaking submitted by the applicant and
complaints or other court orders, if any,
that have been received against the
applicant.

(x) It may noted that GSR 570(E)
only exempts and applicant from the
operation of Section 6 (2)(f) and none of
the other sub-sections of Section 6(2) of the
Passports Act, 1967.

(xi) A revised Undertaking under
GSR 570(E) is attached at Annexure 'A'.

(xii) Passport Officers may issue
an internal SOP along the above lines so
that there is no confusion in handling of
applications that would attract provisions of
section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The above instructions may
be noted for strict compliance with
immediate effect.

Annexure 'A' UNDERTAKING
(to be submitted on plain paper as per
provisions
of
GSR-570(E)
dated
25.08.1993)

I am applying/have applied for
passport with the following details:-

(a)
Name
:..........................................

(b)
Date
of
Birth
:.........................................

(c)Father's
Name
:.........................................

(d)Mother's
Name
:.........................................

(e)
Present
Address
:..........................................

(f)
File
No./ARN
No.
:................................ Date:...............

2. The Criminal case(s) with
following details is/are pending against me:

(if more than one case is pending,
details of all cases may be provided.
Additional
sheet
giving
complete
information may be attached)

(a)
Case
No.
:............................................

(b)
Name
of
Court
:............................................

(c)
Details
of
Investigating
Agency (Please provide details of Police
station
Investigating
Officer,
etc.)
:.............................................

(d)Last
date
of
hearing
:..............................................

(e)Next
date
of
hearing
:.............................................

3. I hereby undertake that I shall,
if required by the Court concerned, appear
before it at any time during the continuance
in force of the passport so issued.

4. I am aware that it is an offence
under the Passports Act, 1967 to furnish
any false information or to suppress any
material information with a view to
obtaining a passport or any other travel
document.

5. The above information given
by me in this undertaking and enclosures is
true and I am solely responsible for its
accuracy.
(Signature of the Passport applicant)
Name.............................................
Mobile No....................................
Date:................
Place:...............
***

8. After considering the arguments as
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as after perusal of record, this Court
finds that Under Article 19(1)(d) and
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the
citizens of the country are entitled for
passport. In Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India 1978 (1) SCC 248, the Apex Court
has held that having passport is a
fundamental right of the citizen of India
and a citizen can not be deprived of such
fundamental right and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph Nos. 214 and 215 was
pleased to observe as under:

214. In India, at any rate, we are
all certainly governed by our Constitution.
The fact that the affected petitioner may
not, as a result of a particular order, be
able to do something intended to be done
by her abroad cannot possibly make the
governmental
action
in
India
either
ineffective or immune from judicial scrutiny
or from an attack made on the ground of a
violation of a fundamental right which
inheres
in
an
Indian
citizen.
The
consequences
or
effects
upon
the
petitioner's possible actions or future
activities in other countries may be a factor
which may be weighed, where relevant,
9 All. Mohd. Hasan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1469
with other relevant facts in a particular
case in judging the merits of the restriction
imposed. It will be relevant insofar as it
can be shown to have some connection with
public
or
national
interests
when
determining the merits of an order passed.
It may show how she has become a "person
aggrieved" with a cause of action, by a
particular order involving her personal
freedom. But, such considerations cannot
curtail or impair the scope or operation of
fundamental
rights
of
citizens
as
protections against unjustifiable actions of
their own Government. Nor can they, by
their
own
force,
protect
legally
unjustifiable actions of the Government of
our country against attacks in our own
courts.

215. In order to apply the tests
contained in Articles 14 and 19 of the
Constitution, we have to consider the
objects for which the exercise of inherent
rights recognised by Article 21 of the
Constitution are restricted as well as the
procedure by which these restrictions are
sought to be imposed. Both substantive and
procedural laws and actions taken under
them will have to pass tests imposed by
Articles 14 and 19 whenever facts justifying
the invocation of either of these articles
may be disclosed. For example, an
international singer or dancer may well be
able to complain of an `unjustifiable
restriction on professional activity by a
denial of a passport. In such a case,
violations of both Articles 21 and 19(1)(g)
may both be put forward making it
necessary for the authorities concerned to
justify the restriction imposed, by showing
satisfaction of tests of validity contemplated
by each of these two articles."

9. Thus, this Court after considering
the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra) is of the view that right to
travel abroad is a part of the personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and 19
(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and in
addition thereto a careful reading of
provisions of the Passport Act and the
Notification dated 25.08.1993 alongwith
the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019
in the light of it's legislative backgrounds as
mentioned above, it is clear that passport or
travel document of a person, who is facing
trial can be refused by the authority
concerned during pendency of his criminal
case, but there is no statutory bar for
giving
no
objection
by
the
court
concerned. No hard and fast straight
jacket formula can be laid down
regarding issuance of permission or
giving
no
objection
by
the
court
concerned for issuance of passport. It is
always discretion of the court concerned
and
depend
upon
the
facts
and
circumstances of each case, act and
conduct of the accused as well as nature
of alleged offence committed by him/her
and stage of trial, etc. Some time on
account of enmity or ill will one party
enmesh the other party in a frivolous
criminal case to settle his personal score,
therefore, in the interest of justice, it is
necessary to consider all aspects of the
matter
and surrounding circumstances
while granting or refusing the no objection
for renewal or reissue of passport or travel
documents by the court concerned or by the
authorities concerned and the trial in the
above case is not likely to conclude very
soon. These were relevant factors to be
considered by the learned Trial Court while
passing the impugned order.

The learned trial court had
completely ignored the Notification issued
by Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi
dated 25.08.1993 as well as Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Ministry
of
External
Affairs,
Government of India, New Delhi (referred
above) while passing the impugned order
for grant permission for renewal/re-issue of
passport, thus, the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside/reversed.

10. In view of above, in the light of
the notification dated 25.08.1993 and the
Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 as
well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Maneka
Gandhi (Supra) and considering the larger
mandate of the Article 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, the impugned order
dated
08.08.2024
passed
by
learned
Additional Civil Judge/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Lucknow
is hereby set aside and reversed.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition
is
allowed
with
following
directions:

(i) The petitioner shall move a
fresh application along with certified copy
of this order for renewal/re-issue of his
passport before the Regional Passport
Officer, Lucknow within 20 days from the
date of this order.

(ii) In case such application is
moved by the petitioner, within the time
stipulated by this Court, the concerned
Regional Passport Officer/authority shall
decide the application and pass an order for
renewal/re-issue of the passport of the
applicant within 01 month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order,
after completing the due formalities in
accordance with law.

(iii) If the passport is renewed/reissued to the petitioner, he shall inform and
take permission from the trial court
concerned before going abroad and he shall
appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed as directed by the trial Court and he
shall be bound by the terms and conditions
imposed by the trial court, if any.

(iv) The trial Court, if grants
permission to the petitioner to go abroad,
may impose condition in accordance with
law, during the pendency of the case
pending before it.

(v) The petitioner is also directed
to submit the copy of the trial court's order,
if any, condition imposed by the trial court
regarding permission to go abroad, before
the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow.

(vi) Let a copy of this order be
given to Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned
Sr. Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General
of India appearing for Union of India and
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I
for
the
State
for
information
and
communication
to
the
authorities
concerned.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 14235 of 2023

Jitendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satyaveer Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - cancellation of selection of
the petitioner as Member of the District