# Mohd. Talha v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 923
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1775 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-talha-v-u-o-i-ors-53468
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226,
21
&
19(1)(d)-Passport
Act,1967-Sections
6(2)(f)
&
22-The
petitioner a practicing advocate applied
for a passport -his application was denied
due to the pendency of two criminal cases,
following Umapati ruling-legal issue arise
whether under trial is required to obtain
permission or a No Objection Certificate
from the concerned criminal court for
issuance or renewal of the passport
under the act,1967-Held, The court held
that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act,1967 bars
issuance of passport where criminal
proceedings are pending against the
applicant-However, this restriction is
not
absolute
due
to
the
Central
Government's power under section 22 of
the Act-As per GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993,
under
trials
may
be
exempted from this restriction if they
produce orders from the concerned court
permitting them to depart from Indianot
merely
an
NOC-exemption
notification has statutory force and
courts cannot disregard its requirement
by observing that no permission is
needed-The court set aside the earlier
order of the trial court that held such
permission unnecessary and directed the
petitioner

to
seek
fresh
permission.(Para 1 to 29)

B. Doctrine of Per Incuriam: If a judgment
ignores binding precedents or statutory
provisions, it is rendered per incuriam and
does not have binding value. The court
held that the Umapati decision fell into
this category. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
923
(Annexure no. 1) passed by the opposite
party no. 2.

30. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to pay all service benefits
including post retiral benefits of charged
employee
i.e.
Naipal
Singh
(since
deceased) to his wife Smt. Karuna Singh
who has been substituted petitioner on
25.7.2022 within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order of this Court along with interest
@ 8% w.e.f. the date when the aforesaid
benefits accrued till the date of its actual
payment.

31. It is further directed that in case
the aforesaid payments are not paid to the
substituted
petitioner
namely,
Karuna
Singh within time, so stipulated and in the
manner so directed, she shall be entitled for
penal interest @ 12% per annum.

32. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 923
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 1775 of 2025

Mohd. Talha ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arshad Jameel, Mohd. Amir Shazad, Mohd.
Salman

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

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226,
21
&
19(1)(d)-Passport
Act,1967-Sections
6(2)(f)
&
22-The
petitioner a practicing advocate applied
for a passport -his application was denied
due to the pendency of two criminal cases,
following Umapati ruling-legal issue arise
whether under trial is required to obtain
permission or a No Objection Certificate
from the concerned criminal court for
issuance or renewal of the passport
under the act,1967-Held, The court held
that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act,1967 bars
issuance of passport where criminal
proceedings are pending against the
applicant-However, this restriction is
not
absolute
due
to
the
Central
Government's power under section 22 of
the Act-As per GSR 570(E) dated
25.08.1993,
under
trials
may
be
exempted from this restriction if they
produce orders from the concerned court
permitting them to depart from Indianot
merely
an
NOC-exemption
notification has statutory force and
courts cannot disregard its requirement
by observing that no permission is
needed-The court set aside the earlier
order of the trial court that held such
permission unnecessary and directed the
petitioner

to
seek
fresh
permission.(Para 1 to 29)

B. Doctrine of Per Incuriam: If a judgment
ignores binding precedents or statutory
provisions, it is rendered per incuriam and
does not have binding value. The court
held that the Umapati decision fell into
this category. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Salim Kumar Vs U.O.I. & ors. , W.P. No.
31723(M/B) of 2018

2. Shiv Shankar Vs U.O.I. & ors. , Writ C No.
8621 of 2022

3. Smt. Rashmi Kapoor Vs U.O.I. & ors , Writ C
No. 3617 of 2022
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Shah Alam Vs U.O.I. & ors. , Writ C No. 8874
of 2024

5. Umapati Vs U.O.I. & ors. , Writ C No.5587 of
2024

6. U.T. of Ladakh & ors. Vs J& K National
Conference & ors. , Civil Appeal No. 5707 of
2023 {SLP (C ) No. 18727 of 2023

7. NICL Vs Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680

8. Chandra Prakash & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2002)
4 SCC 234

9. U.O.I. Vs Raghubir Singh Vs (1989) 2 SCC
754

10. Pradip Chandra Parija & ors. Vs Pramod
Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC p. 1

11. Rattiram Vs St. of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516

12. National Telephone Co. Ltd. Vs Post Master
Gen. (1913) AC 546 HL

13. Sandeep Kr. Bafna Vs St. of Mah. (2014) 6
SCC 623

14. Satwan Singh Sawhney Vs U.O.I. (1966) AIR
SCC 1836

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned
Senior Advocate/D.S.G.I. assisted by Shri
Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for Union
of India and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court seeking writ of
mandamus directing the opposite party
No.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow,
for issuance of passport to him as per the
notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the
Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is
borne from the writ petition that the
petitioner, a practicing Advocate of this
Court, had applied for issuance of fresh
passport
vide
Application
No.LK3069688351424,
wherein
certain
adverse report was submitted by the
concerned police to the Passport Officer
relating to pendency of two criminal case
against the petitioner. Two criminal cases
as stated in the writ petition being (i) Case
Crime
No.
113/13
under
Sections
147/504/506/507/354/354D IPC and (ii)
Case Crime No. 123/11 under Sections
323/504/ 506 IPC.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that as
an under trial, he filed an application in
Case Crime No. 113/13 before the Court of
ACJM, CBI (A), Lucknow on 05.06.2024,
which came to be disposed of vide order
dated 30.07.2024 on the grounds that there
is no need to take permission from the trial
Court for obtaining Passport in view of
judgment dated 25.06.2024 rendered by a
Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-C No. 5587 of
2024 : Umapati Vs. Union of India and 3
others. As far as the other criminal case,
bearing Case Crime No. 123/11, is
concerned, the petitioner has enclosed a
copy of the report submitted by SubInspector, Police Station Chowk, Lucknow
to the Court of ACJM, CBI (AP) as
Annexure
No.4,
whereby
the
SubInspector, Police Station Chowk, Lucknow
reported to the Court of ACJM, CBI (AP)
that in Case Crime No. 123 of 2011, the
then
Investigating
Officer
had
forwarded/submitted Final Report No. 45
dated 16.07.2011 to the Court concerned.

5. It appears that the petitioner armed
with the aforesaid orders approached the
opposite party No.2-Regional Passport
Officer, whereupon he was advised that
5 All. Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
925
verification would be done of the said
orders by the concerned police and the
Regional Passport Officer would act
accordingly.

6. In the aforesaid background, it is the
grievance of the petitioner that since no
passport has been issued to him, a direction
may be given to the concerned authority for
that said purpose and as such has relied on
the Notification of the Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993.

7. According to the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, since the trial Court has
rejected his prayer for grant of NOC vide
order dated 25.06.2024 on the ground that
as per judgment in Umapati (supra), there
is no requirement of prior permission from
the trial Court for issuance/renewal of
passport, as such, there was no occasion for
the opposite party no.2-Regional Passport
Officer not to renew/re-issue him Passport
as per the prevailing notification.

8. Per contra, Shri S.B. Pandey,
learned D.S.G.I. has stated that on a plain
reading of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Umapati's
case, it is apparent that the said decision
has not noted any of earlier judgments
passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court relating to similar issue nor the
Notifications of the Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi dated 25.08.1993 and
Office Memo dated 10.10.2019 issued by
the Government of India under Section 22
of the Passport Act, 1967, which it appears
were not brought to the notice of the said
Co-ordinate Bench.

9. Shri Pandey also invited our
attention to earlier decisions of this Court
such as decision dated 20.11.2018 passed
in Writ Petition No.31723 (M/B) of 2018
'Salim Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.'
wherein this aspect as also GSR 570(E)
dated
25.08.1993
was
taken
into
consideration as also decision of Delhi
High Court and thereafter, direction was
issued to the petitioner to move an
appropriate application before the court of
criminal jurisdiction where the trial was
pending against him seeking permission to
go abroad. Consequential direction was
also issued for consideration of issuance of
passport if such permission is granted by
the court below. He has also placed before
us another Division Bench judgment dated
03.12.2022 rendered in Writ-C No.8621 of
2022 'Shiv Shankar vs. Union of India &
Ors.' wherein similar view has been taken
after considering the Notification dated
25.08.1993
and
10.10.2019
as
also
provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. He
has also referred to a similar decision dated
21.06.2022 rendered in Writ-C No.3617 of
2022 by Division Bench of this Court in the
case of 'Smt. Rashmi Kapoor vs. Union
of India & Ors.' wherein also law has been
elucidated and directions have been issued
accordingly in a case where criminal cases
were pending and passport was not being
issued. He has also referred to a recent
decision dated 21.10.2024 rendered by
Division Bench of which one of us
(Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.) was a member in
Writ-C No.8874 of 2024 : Shah Alam vs.
Union of India & Ors.' on the same
subject and he has then referred to the
judgment dated 25.06.2024 rendered by a
Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-C No.5587 of
2024 'Umapati vs. Union of India & Ors.'
wherein it has been held that there is no
provision in the Passport Act requiring any
permission to be taken from the court of
criminal jurisdiction where the criminal
trial are pending for issuance of a passport
and a direction has been issued to the
Passport Officer to take a decision on the
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application
of
the
petitioner.
The
submission is that this judgment dated
25.06.2024 has been rendered in ignorance
of
and
without
considering
earlier
judgments on the same subject by the Coordinate Benches. He has also invited our
attention to various judgments of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court wherein the law of
precedents has been discussed and it has
been held that in the event, there being
conflicting
judgments
of
Co-ordinate
Benches, it is the earlier judgment which
should be followed especially in a case
where the subsequent Division Bench has
not considered the earlier Division Bench
judgment. These decisions have been
rendered in Civil Appeal No.5707 of 2023
(@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18727
of 2023) 'Union Territory of Ladakh and
ors. vs. Jammu & Kashmir National
Conference and Ors.' dated 06.09.2023;
(2017) 16 SCC 680 'National Insurance
Company Limited v Pranay Sethi' which
in fact is a Constitution Bench judgment on
the same issue; 'Chandra Prakash and
Ors. vs. State of U.P.' (2002) 4 SCC 234;
'Union of India vs. Raghubir Singh'
(1989) 2 SCC 754; 'Pradip Chandra
Parija and others v. Pramod Chandra
Patnaik' (2002) 1 SCC Page 1; 'Rattiram
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' (2012) 4
SCC 516; 'National Telephone Company
Ltd vs Post Master General' 1913 AC546
(HL) and 'Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs.
State of Maharastra' (2014) 6 SCC 623.
He has specifically referred to the decision
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Rattiram (supra) wherein the question of
conflict between two judgments rendered
by benches of equal strength specifically
came up for consideration and a Three
Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court
relying upon Constitution Bench decision
in Raghubir Singh (supra) and other
decisions on the subject held that earlier
decision was a binding precedent and when
in ignorance of it, subsequent decision has
been rendered, the latter would not
constitute a binding precedent as concept of
per incuriam would come into play.

10. Having heard the learned Counsel
for the parties, this Court finds that the core
issue engaging the attention of this Court is
whether there is any requirement under the
Passport Act, 1967 for an under trial to
obtain permission/'NOC' from the Court
where his trial is pending for going abroad
and for issuance of Passport or for its
renewal.

11. This Court in its endeavour to
decide the said issue wishes to put on
record that more than 50 years ago, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its celebrated
Judgment passed in
"Satwan Singh
Sawhney Vs. Union of India" : AIR 1966
SCC 1836 held and read the right of a
citizen to travel into the right to personal
liberty as per Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. In consequence to the abovementioned judgment, Passport Bill was
introduced and later was enacted as "The
Passport Act, 1967". The essence of the
said legislation and the subsequent passport
rules of 1980 framed therein was with a
purpose to provide/issue passports/travel
documents and regulate the departure of
citizens from India and matters incidentals
and ancillary thereto.

12. Section 3 of the Passport Act,
1967 invariably says that no person shall
depart from, or attempt to depart from,
India unless he holds in this behalf a valid
Passport or travel document.

13. Section 5 of the Passport Act,
1967 relates to filing of application for
Passports, travel document etc., wherein
5 All. Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
927
the Passport Authority is empowered to
issue and/or refuse Passport as per the
terms of the said provision.

14. However, Section 6 of the Passport
Act, 1967 relates to provisions for specific
refusal of Passport, travel documents etc.,
wherein various conditions for refusal have
been enumerated therein. Section 6 of the
Passport Act, 1967, which specifically
entails
refusal
of
Passport,
travel
documents etc., is as under :-

"6. Refusal of passports, travel
documents. Etc.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act, the passport authority shall
refuse to make an endorsement for visiting
any country under clause (b) or clause (c)
of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one
or more of the following grounds, and on
no other ground, namely:-

(a) that the applicant may, or is
likely to, engage in such country in
activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and
integrity of India;

(b) that the presence of the
applicant in such country may, or is likely
to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the
applicant in such country may, or is likely
to, prejudice the friendly relations of India
with that or any other country;

(d) that in the opinion of the
Central Government the presence of the
applicant in such country is not in the
public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act, the passport authority shall
refuse to issue a passport or travel
document for visiting any foreign country
under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the
following grounds, and on no other ground,
namely:-

(a) that the applicant is not a
citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is
likely to, engage outside India in activities
prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity
of India;

(c) that the departure of the
applicant from India may, or is likely to, be
detrimental to the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the
applicant outside India may, or is likely to,
prejudice the friendly relations of India
with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any
time during the period of five years
immediately preceding the date of his
application, been convicted by a court in
India for any offence involving moral
turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof
to imprisonment for not less than two
years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of
an offence alleged to have been committed
by the applicant are pending before a
criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for
the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest,
of the applicant has been issued by a court
under any law for the time being in force or
that an order prohibiting the departure from
India of the applicant has been made by
any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been
repatriated and has not reimbursed the
expenditure incurred in connection with
such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the
Central Government the issue of a passport
or travel document to the applicant will not
be in the public interest."

15. Since this Court is dealing with the
issue relating to issuance of Passport during
the pendency of proceeding before a
criminal court in India, the relevant
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provision for consideration would be
Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967,
which, in categorical terms mandates the
Passport Authority to refuse to issue a
Passport or travel document for visiting any
foreign country under Clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 5 on the ground that
the proceedings in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed by the
applicant are pending before a criminal
court in India. The word 'shall' used in
Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act, 1967
indicates a mandatory or binding nature of
the provision and does not give any room
for discretion. Section 6 (2) (f) is a
reasonable restriction imposed by law
within the framework of Article 19 (f) of
the Constitution of India and debars
issuance of passport where proceedings in
respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by the applicant is pending
before a criminal Court in India.

16. Section 22 of the 1967 Act is an
exception carved out from the restrictions
imposed by the Act itself. It reads as under
:-

"22. Power to exempt.-

Where the Central Government is
of the opinion that it is necessary or
expedient in the public interest so to do, it
may, by notification in the Official Gazette
and subject to such conditions, if any, as it
may specify in the notification,-

(a) exempt any person or class of
persons from the operation of all or any of
the provisions of this Act or the rules made
thereunder; and

(b) as often as may be, cancel any
such notification and again subject, by a
like notification, the person or class of
persons
to
the
operation
of
such
provisions."

17. The aforesaid Section 22 confers
on the Central Government the power to
exempt where it is of the opinion that it is
necessary or expedient in the public interest
to do so, by Notification in the Official
Gazette. Such exemption by Notification
includes exemption of any person or class
of persons from the operation of all or any
of the provisions of the Act or the Rules
made thereunder. It is in this regard, so as
to provide such exemption, the Central
Government exercising powers conferred
under Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967,
has published Official Gazette notification
[GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993]. For the
sake of reference relevant portion of
Official Gazette [GSR 570 (E) dated
25.08.1993] is extracted hereunder :-

"MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993

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
5 All. Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
929
court specifies a period for which the
passport has to be issued; or

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

(iii)
if
such
order
gives
permission to travel abroad for a period less
than one year, but does not specify the
period 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
exeeding one year, and does not specify the
validity of the pass-port, 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 for 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 of 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 passport
issuing 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.

[No.VI|401|37|79]

Sd/-
L.K. Ponappa, Jt. Secy, (CPV)"

(emphasis supplied)

18. In view thereof, it can be safely
deduced that the provision of Section 6 (2)
(f) of the Act, 1967 does not impose an
absolute bar on the issuance of passports to
individuals
against
whom
criminal
proceedings are pending, as, in that regard
Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967
provides power to the Central Government
for
grant
of
exemptions
from
the
application of all or any provisions of the
Passport Act, 1967, which has been
exercised by issue of notification dated
25.08.1993.

19. This Court finds that under
Official Gazette Notification GSR 570 (E)
dated 25.08.1993, the Central Government
has exempted individuals facing pending
criminal proceedings from the restrictions
imposed under Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act,
1967, provided they obtain order from the
concerned Court permitting them to depart
from India. Further, in case the concerned
Court grants permission, then a passport
may be issued for the duration specified in
the order. In case, no period is mentioned,
then, the passport shall be issued for a
maximum of one year. In the absence of
Court's order permitting to depart from
India, the restriction under Section 6 (2) (f)
of 1967 Act remains in force which
prevents issuance or renewal of the
Passport.

20. The aforesaid notification under
Section 22 of the Act, 1967 has statutory
backing and force. The requirement of
obtaining 'permission' or 'NOC' for an
under-trial to go abroad, is a statutory
requirement under the Act, 1967.

21. As to the period for which the
passport can be issued, it is easily
discernible from the aforesaid notification
that in case of sub-clause (i), (iii) and (iv)
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Clause (a), the Court not only grants
permission to the under-trial to depart from
India, but specifies a period therefor, in
which case the Passport Authority is bound
to issue the passport for that said period as
granted by the Court or in case the period
of travel is less than one year as per subclause (iii) of Clause (a) for a period of one
year.

22. It is seen that the Central
Government has deliberately left the period
for issuance of Passport to the discretion of
the trial Court. However, if the Court
chooses to grant permission to the applicant
to depart from India but abstains from
specifying the period therefor, i.e., the trial
Court refuses to exercise its discretion in
the first instance as aforesaid, then the
power of determining the period reverts
back to the residuary authority of the
Central Government, which is conferred on
the Central Government in the first place
by the source of its power, that is, Section
22 of the Act, 1967 and, in such a case, a
reasonable period of one year has been
fixed by the Central Government, which
this Court finds to be in consonance with
Section 22 of the parent statute that is the
Passport Act, 1967 as well as Article 19 (5)
of the Constitution of India, read in the
context of Section 6 (2) (f) of the 1967 Act.

23. While things stood thus, there had
been a confusion relating to the procedure
for processing of the Passport Application
amongst the authorities, wherein the
Ministry of External Affairs published
Office
Memorandum,
bearing
No.
VI/401/I/5/2019
dated
10.10.2019
prescribing
guidelines/
procedure
for
processing applications under Section 6 (2)
(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. As per the
said Memorandum also, the applicant is
required
to
submit
an
application/undertaking to the Passport
Authorities, disclosing all pending criminal
cases. If any cases are pending against the
under-trial, the said under-trial shall obtain
'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the
concerned Court seeking leave to depart
India. Subsequently, Police Verification
(PV) shall be conducted by the police
authorities and subject to the police
verification report, passport authorities may
issue or reject issuance of passport by
giving reasons. It may be reminded that the
said Memorandum is an extension of the
earlier Notification inasmuch as the said
Memorandum of 2019 itself records that
the provisions of GSR 570 (E) be strictly
applied in all case as it being a statutory
notification and forms part of the rules.

24.
In
the given
circumstances,
although Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport
Act, 1967 clearly provides that if the
proceedings in respect of an alleged
offence committed by the petitioner are
pending before the criminal Court in India,
then, it shall constitute a ground for refusal
of issuance of Passport, however, by virtue
of the beneficial statutory notification of
GSR 570 (E) (dated 25th August, 1993)
read along with the Office Memorandum
dated
10.10.2019,
the
petitioner
on
submission of 'No Objection Certificate'
from the Court where the proceedings are
pending, shall be exempted from the
operation of Section 6 (2) (f) of the
Passport Act, 1967 and he/she would be
entitled to go abroad and for this NOC
issuance/renewal of the passport is implicit.

25. A plain reading of the provisions
of Passport Act, 1967 and the beneficial
Notification issued in terms of Section 22
of the Act, 1967 leads to the sole logical
conclusion that in all cases wherein
criminal proceedings are pending and have
5 All. Mohd. Talha Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
931
been denied the issuance of passport by the
operation of Section 6 (2) (f) of the
Passport Act, 1967, the under-trial, as a
condition precedent has to first seek
permission or NOC from the Court
concerned, wherein the trial is pending, to
travel
abroad
or
depart,
for
which
essentially a passport is required and then
only as a condition subsequent apply to the
passport authority for issuance of the
passport
for
a
particular
period
as
mentioned in the permission order itself or
for the period as mentioned in GSR 570(E)
dated 25th of August, 1993.

26. However, misinterpreting Section
6 (2) (f) of Act, 1967 and Office
Memorandum No. VI/40/1/5/2019 dated
10.10.2019, several under-trails have been
obtaining
'No
Objection
Certificates'
(NOCs) from the Court for the re-issuance
of passports, instead of securing order
permitting applicant to depart from India.
Accordingly, the Ministry of External
Affairs, with the intent to clarify the issue,
published an Office Memorandum (OM)
dated 06.12.2024 through its PSP Division,
stating that there is no legal provision
requiring an applicant to obtain permission
or 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from
the concerned Court for the issuance or reissuance of a passport. Instead, the
applicant is required to obtain permission
from the concerned Court specifically to
depart from India or travel abroad.
Relevant
portions
from
the
Office
Memorandum (OM) dated 06.12.2024 is
extracted hereunder :-

"8. It may be noted that there is
no
such
provision
for
seeking
permission/NOC from the court concerned
for issuance of passport; instead it is
permission to depart from India. In case the
applicant
is
unable
to
provide
the
prescribed documents, PIA may issue a
refusal order under Section 6 of the
Passport Act, 1967 prescribing provisions
for appeal."

27. It goes without saying that as per
Official Gazette [GSR 570 (E) dated
25.08.1993], relaxation under Section 6 (2)
(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 applies to only
those persons who produce orders from the
Court concerned permitting them to depart
India, otherwise, the rigour of refusing
issuance
of
passport
would
follow
consequently.

28. Apparently, it seems that when the
petitioner applied for such NOC, the
concerned trial Court passed an order
stating that such permission was not
required to be given by it. We have already
discussed relevant provisions of Passport
Act, 1967 and the notifications issued
thereunder
which
do
require
such
permission to be taken from the Court
where criminal trial is pending. We have
also referred to the earlier judgments of
several Co-ordinate Benches where the law
has been discussed and clarified in this
regard. In this context, we have also taken
into consideration the submissions of
learned
Senior
Counsel
and
Deputy
Solicitor
General
of
India.
We,
accordingly, set-aside the order dated
30.07.2024 passed in Case No. 2397 of
2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of
2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
(A.P.), Lucknow in exercise of our suo
moto inherent powers. Consequently, the
application of the petitioner shall stand
revived and will be considered afresh in the
light
of
what
has
been
discussed
hereinabove and a decision shall be taken
within a period of three weeks. The
aforesaid order dated 30.07.2024 has been
passed in the context of Case Crime
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.113 of 2013 as referred earlier,
however, there is another criminal case
against the petitioner, bearing Case Crime
No. 123 of 2011, in respect to which, some
document has been filed by the petitioner
indicating submission of a Final Report by
the Investigating Officer, however, there is
no
order
regarding
its
acceptance,
therefore, the petitioner will have to find
out as to whether the Final Report has been
accepted, if so, produce the said order
before the Regional Passport Officer. If it
has not been accepted or on a protest
application, same is being proceeded, then,
he will have to seek permission from the
Court of criminal jurisdiction, where the
said case is pending on the same lines as
discussed
hereinabove.
If,
the
NOC/Permission for going abroad is
granted by the aforesaid Courts, then, the
petitioner shall submit the same before the
Regional Passport Officer concerned, who
shall then process the application of the
petitioner for issuance of passport as per
law and take a decision within a period
three weeks of submission of such
NOC/Permission.

29. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 932
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 3389 of 2025

M/s Rajdhani Inter State Transport Co.
New Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tushar Mittal, Kartikey Dubey, Shrikant
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226, 14, 21 & 32-Allahabad High
Court Rules 1952-Ch. IV- Rule 3-Notaries
Act,
1952-Section
8(1)(e)-The
court
addressed two critical issues impacting
access to justice-the validity of affidavits
sworn before Notary Publics and the
unlawful imposition of charges for photo
identification
by
Bar
Associations-The
court held that affidavits attested by
Notary Publics under the Notaries Act are
valid and must be accepted by the court
registry without objections-the court also
declared the practice of charging Rs. 500
for photo identification in excess of the
officially sanctioned Rs. 125 as illegal,
unsanctioned
and
violative
of
constitutional principles ensuring access
to justice-Any extra collection will attract
contempt
proceedings-direction
issued.
(Para 1 to 39)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. In furtherance to the order dated
16.04.2025 wherein, this Court had noticed
the grievances as raised by the petitioner
with regard to the affidavit sworn before
the Notary Public not being accepted and
also with regard to the manner in which the
amount of Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- was being
charged from the litigants contrary to any
provisions of law, the instructions were
called and have been given by the counsel
appearing on behalf of the High Court
which are taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Tushar Mittal, learned
Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court;
Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate;