# Rahimuddin v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1015
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 34412 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahimuddin-v-u-o-i-anr-52616
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agarwal

Issue for consideration
The Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly issued a
passport to the petitioner for one year despite
the competent criminal court granting No
objection/sanction/approval. The petitioner filed
the writ petition seeking a direction to the
Passport Officer to re-issue/renew his passport
for the standard period of ten years.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Indian Penal Code, 1860section 447-Prevention of Damage to
Public
Property
Act,1984-Section
3Passport Act,1967-Sections, 5, 6(2)(f), 22Validity of one year upheld-The provision
under section 22 of the Passport Act,1967
and the Notification dated 25.08.1993
allows the Passport Authority to issue a
passport with a validity of one year only.
Held
The court held that the passport-issuing
authority was well within its power to grant a
one -year passport, and the petitioner cannot
demand a passport or its renewal for ten years
as a matter of right-The court granted liberty to
the petitioner to seek renewal before its expiry
by following the due procedure prescribed in
law-The court issued administrative directions,
emphasizing that Regional Passport Officers
must inform applicants of any impediments
within one month of application and that the
police department must submit its verification
report within four weeks to avoid unnecessary
delays, thereby recognizing the Right to Travel
as part of the right to life and personal
liberty.(Para 9 to 29) (E-6)

List of Acts/Rules
Constitution
of
India,1950,
Indian
Penal
Code,1860, Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act,1984, Passport Act,1967, The
passport rules,1980, Government Notification
dated 25.08.1993 (G.S.R. 570(E) under section
22 of Passport Act,1967, Office Memorandum
No. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019. (E-6)

List of Keywords
Passport,
Passport
Authority,
Office
Memorandum, Right to Travel, No. Objection
Certificate, Constitution of India,1950, Indian
Penal Code,1860, Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act,1984, Passport Act,1967,
One Year Validity, Pending Criminal Cases.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 34412 of
2025
 Rahimuddin Vs. Union of India & Another
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
10.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):
 Gulabul Hasan,Pradeep Kumar Aditya, Rajesh
Kumar Verma
Advs. for Respondent(s):
 A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agrawal

Case law cited:
Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs Union of India & 2 Ors
(Neutral Citation No., (2024):AHC:9963-DB),
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ishtiyak Khan Vs Union of India & Ors (Writ C
No.
24699
of
2024),
Vangala
Kasturi
Rangacharyulu
Vs
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3549,Rita
Verma Vs Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
10661 of 2024, Mohd. Talha Vs Uol Thru. Its
Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi & 2
Ors, Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC-LKO:24961DB,Satwant
Singh
Sawhney
Vs
D.
Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, 1967
SCC OnLine SC 21, Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of
India, (1978) 1 SCC 248-referred to.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,872 of 42,168. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39872 for what follows._

10 All. Rahimuddin Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1015
20.
In
view
of
the
above
judgments, the impugned attachment order
dated
February
9,
2015
passed
by
respondent no.4 for recovery of dues of
State Government is quashed and set aside.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1015
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA
CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ - C No. 34412 of 2025

Rahimuddin ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gulabul Hasan, Pradeep Kumar Aditya,
Rajesh Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agarwal

Issue for consideration
The Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly issued a
passport to the petitioner for one year despite
the competent criminal court granting No
objection/sanction/approval. The petitioner filed
the writ petition seeking a direction to the
Passport Officer to re-issue/renew his passport
for the standard period of ten years.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Indian Penal Code, 1860section 447-Prevention of Damage to
Public
Property
Act,1984-Section
3Passport Act,1967-Sections, 5, 6(2)(f), 22Validity of one year upheld-The provision
under section 22 of the Passport Act,1967
and the Notification dated 25.08.1993
allows the Passport Authority to issue a
passport with a validity of one year only.
Held
The court held that the passport-issuing
authority was well within its power to grant a
one -year passport, and the petitioner cannot
demand a passport or its renewal for ten years
as a matter of right-The court granted liberty to
the petitioner to seek renewal before its expiry
by following the due procedure prescribed in
law-The court issued administrative directions,
emphasizing that Regional Passport Officers
must inform applicants of any impediments
within one month of application and that the
police department must submit its verification
report within four weeks to avoid unnecessary
delays, thereby recognizing the Right to Travel
as part of the right to life and personal
liberty.(Para 9 to 29) (E-6)

List of Acts/Rules
Constitution
of
India,1950,
Indian
Penal
Code,1860, Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act,1984, Passport Act,1967, The
passport rules,1980, Government Notification
dated 25.08.1993 (G.S.R. 570(E) under section
22 of Passport Act,1967, Office Memorandum
No. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019. (E-6)

List of Keywords
Passport,
Passport
Authority,
Office
Memorandum, Right to Travel, No. Objection
Certificate, Constitution of India,1950, Indian
Penal Code,1860, Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act,1984, Passport Act,1967,
One Year Validity, Pending Criminal Cases.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION- WRIT-C No.- 34412 of
2025
 Rahimuddin Vs. Union of India & Another
 From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
10.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):
 Gulabul Hasan,Pradeep Kumar Aditya, Rajesh
Kumar Verma
Advs. for Respondent(s):
 A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agrawal

Case law cited:
Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs Union of India & 2 Ors
(Neutral Citation No., (2024):AHC:9963-DB),
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ishtiyak Khan Vs Union of India & Ors (Writ C
No.
24699
of
2024),
Vangala
Kasturi
Rangacharyulu
Vs
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3549,Rita
Verma Vs Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.
10661 of 2024, Mohd. Talha Vs Uol Thru. Its
Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi & 2
Ors, Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC-LKO:24961DB,Satwant
Singh
Sawhney
Vs
D.
Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, 1967
SCC OnLine SC 21, Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of
India, (1978) 1 SCC 248-referred to.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama
Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Aditya,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Sri Agresh Agarwal, Advocate holding
brief of Sri Arvind Nath Agarwal, learned
panel counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution has been filed by
the petitioner seeking a direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent
no.
2-Regional
Passport
Officer,
District
Bareilly
to
re-issue
passport to the petitioner for a period of ten
years pursuant to the No Objection
Certificate (NOC) dated 10.10.2024 issued
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit as the
passport was issued earlier to the petitioner
for a period of one year.

3. Background facts of this case are
that the petitioner had earlier approached
this Court by filing Writ C No. 30083 of
2024 (Rahimuddin vs. Union of India and
Another), seeking a direction to the
respondents to issue a passport in his
favour, as the matter remained pending
before passport office for one criminal
case, arising out of FIR No.181 of 2016
under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 being pending against him. The
Division Bench had disposed of the above
petition with directions vide its order dated
10.09.2024, following the judgment in the
case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar vs. Union
of India & 2 Others (Neutral Citation No.,
2024:AHC:9963-DB). In compliance of the
order dated 10.09.2024, petitioner applied
for No Objection/ sanction/ approval which
was granted to him by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pilibhit on 10.10.2024 and
consequently, passport was issued to the
petitioner, to be valid for one year i.e. from
20.01.2025 to 19.01.2026.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that in view of the
permission granted by the competent Court,
the passport of the petitioner should be
renewed for a period of ten years as is
statutorily prescribed. In support of his
submissions, he has relied upon the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar
(supra), which is applicable in cases where
criminal
cases
are
pending
against
applicant and if such applicant gets no
objection/sanction/approval
from
the
concerned criminal law court to travel
outside
India,
then
such
passport
applications can be disposed of by granting
passport or renewal of passport as the case
may be, provided there is no other legal
impediment. Learned counsel has also
relied upon an order dated 23.10.2024
passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ C No. 24699 of 2024
(Ishtiyak Khan vs. Union of India and
Others).

5. Controverting submissions made
by the counsel for the petitioner, learned
panel counsel appearing for respondentpassport office submits that petitioner had
obtained no objection/approval from the
concerned
trial
court
to
travel
for
10 All. Rahimuddin Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1017
pilgrimage (Haj), but the order of the
competent court does not specify any
duration for which the passport was to be
issued, therefore, the authority has rightly
issued passport for a period of one year.
Learned counsel for the respondents
referred to the Notification dated 28.8.1993
issued by the Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India which provides
guidelines for the issuance of passport to
persons
having
criminal
cases/trials
pending against them.

6. In view of the above rival
submissions, the issue to be determined in
this petition in our view is, whether the
passport-issuing authority has correctly
granted the passport valid for only one
year,
despite
no
objection/sanction/approval order passed
by the competent criminal law court in that
regard and whether petitioner is entitled to
have further renewal of his passport for a
period of ten years in all circumstances if
such no objection/sanction/approval has
been obtained from the competent law
court which does not specify the period for
which a passport could be issued. .

7.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made by respective counsel for
the parties, gone through the relevant
provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 as
well as the Passport Rules, 1980, the
Government Notification dated 25.8.1993
as well as the Office Memorandum
No.VI/401/1/5/2019
dated
10.10.2019
issued by the PSP Division, Ministry of
External Affairs and have also perused the
records. We have also gone through the
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar
(supra) and Ishtiyak Khan (supra) referred
to by learned counsel for the petitioner
along with some other judgements on this
issue.

8. We find it apt here to first
discuss the relevant provisions of the
Passport Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to
as the "Act, 1967") and Government of
India notification dated 25.08.1993. Section
5 of the Act, 1967 provides for filing
application for Passports, travel document
etc., however, Section 6 of the Act relates
to provisions for specific refusal of
Passport,
travel
documents
etc.,
enumerating various conditions for refusal
of passport. For the determination of the
issue in this petition, relevant provisions of
the Act,1967 are reproduced below:

 "5. Applications for passports,
travel
documents,
etc,
and
orders
thereon.-(1) An application for the issue of
a passport under this Act for visiting such
foreign country or countries (not being a
named foreign country) as may be specified
in the application may be made to the
passport
authority
and
shall
be
accompanied by such fee as may be
prescribed to meet the expenses incurred
on
special
security
paper,
printing,
lamination
and
other
connected
miscellaneous services in issuing passports
and other travel documents.

 Explanation.- In this section,
"named foreign country" means such
foreign country as the Central Government
may, by rules made under this Act, specify
in this behalf.

 (1A) An application for the issue
of-

 (i) a passport under this Act for
visiting a named foreign country; or
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (ii) a travel document under this
Act, for visiting such foreign country or
countries (including a named foreign
country) as may be specified in the
application or for an endorsement on the
passport or travel document referred to in
this section, may be made to the passport
authority and shall be accompanied by
such fee (if any) not exceeding rupees fifty,
as may be prescribed.

 (1B) Every application under this
section shall be in such form and contain
such particulars as may be prescribed.

 (2) On receipt of an application
under this section, the passport authority,
after making such inquiry, if any, as it may
consider necessary, shall, subject to the
other provisions of this Act, by order in
writing,?-

 (a) issue the passport or travel
documents with endorsement, or, as the
case may be, make on the passport or
travel document the endorsement, in
respect of the foreign country or countries
specified in the application; or

 (b) issue the passport or travel
document with endorsement, or, as the case
may be, make on the passport or travel
document the endorsement, in respect of
one or more of the foreign countries
specified in the application and refuse to
make an endorsement in respect of the
other country or countries; or

 (c) refuse to issue the passport or
travel document or, as the case may be,
refuse to make on the passport or travel
document any endorsement.

 (3) Where the passport authority
makes an order under clause (b) or clause
(c) of sub-section (2) on the application of
any person, it shall record in writing a
brief statement of its reasons for making
such order and furnish to that person on
demand a copy of the same unless in any
case the passport authority is of the opinion
that it will not be in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of India, friendly relations of India
with any foreign country or in the interests
of the general public to furnish such copy.

 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 foreign
country under clause (b) or clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or
more of the following grounds, and 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
10 All. Rahimuddin Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1019
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.

 (Emphasis added)

7. Duration of passports and
travel documents.-A passport or travel
document shall, unless revoked earlier,
continue in force for such period as may be
prescribed and different periods may be
prescribed for different classes of passports
or travel documents or for different
categories of passports or travel documents
under each such class:

 Provided that a passport or travel
document may be issued for a shorter
period than the prescribed period-

 (a) if the person by whom it is
required so desires; or

 (b) 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.

 8.
Extension
of
period
of
Passport.-Where a passport is issued for a
shorter period than the prescribed period
under section 7, such shorter period shall,
unless the passport authority for reasons
to be recorded in writing otherwise
determines, be extendable for a further
period which together with the shorter
period shall not exceed the prescribed
period and the provisions of this Act shall
apply to such extension as they apply to the
issue thereof.
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 9. Conditions and forms of
passports
and
travel
documents.-The
conditions subject to which, and the form in
which, a passport or travel document shall
be issued or renewed shall be such as may
be prescribed:

 Provided that different conditions
and different forms may be prescribed for
different classes of passports or travel
documents or for different categories of
passports or travel documents under each
such class:

 Provided further that a passport
or travel document may contain in addition
to the prescribed conditions such other
conditions as the passport authority may,
with the previous approval of the Central
Government, impose in any particular case.

 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." (Emphasis added)

9. From perusal of the above-noted
provisions, it is clear that the enactment
foresees
situations
and
circumstances
where authority concerned can make an
enquiry, and on the basis of that authority
can accept or reject the application for
passport made by any person for the
conditions prescribed under the Act.
Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, 1967 makes it
more specific that if proceedings in respect
of an offence alleged to have been
committed by an applicant are pending
before a criminal law court in India, it can
be one of the reasons for refusal of
passport. The Act also provides a provision
for issuance of passport for a shorter period
of time in certain situations, although the
word ?shall? used in Section 6 (2) of the
Act, 1967, indicates its binding nature of
the provision and does not leave any room
for exercising discretion by the passport
authority. Since the issue pertains to the
issuance of Passport during pendency of
proceeding before a criminal law court in
India, Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act, 1967, is
to be considered by us.

10. Supreme Court has considered
Section 6.2 of the Act 1967 in Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs Central Bureau
of Investigation, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
3549, where applicant was convicted for
offences punishable by trial court and the
appeal filed by him was dismissed by the
concerned High Court, however, while his
appeal against the dismissal by the High
Court was already pending consideration in
the Supreme Court, the said appellant filed
application before Supreme Court for a
direction to the respondent to give no
objection for renewal of his passport which
had expired. The counsel representing
Passport Authority contended that subsection 6.2(e) and (f) of the Act, 1967
would be applicable to this case and hence,
the applicant was not entitled to seek
renewal of passport without obtaining
permission from the trial court. After
reproducing Section 6.2 of the Act 1967,
Supreme Court held that:
10 All. Rahimuddin Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1021
 "7. 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.

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

 9. 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.

 10. 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."

 11. To understand the scope of
power under Section 6(2)(f) and how the
order from the competent law court affects
the duration of passport, it becomes
necessary to look into the Notification
dated 25.8.1993 issued by the Ministry of
External Affairs in exercise of power under
Section 22 of the Act 1967. Relevant part
of the notification is reproduced below for
ready reference:

 "G.S.R. 570 (E).- In exercise of
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 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
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 (s) (iii) above can be further
renewed for one year at a time, provided
the applicant has not travelled abroad for
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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;"

 (Emphasis added)

 12. A plain reading of the above
notification unequivocally leads to an
inference that in cases where a citizen is
permitted by the competent court to be
issued with a passport, the duration of such
passport shall be determined in accordance
with the directions provided in that order of
court and if the court order specifies a
period for an applicant to travel abroad for
which the passport is to be issued, the same
shall be issued for that specified duration.
However, in case no such period is
indicated in the order then the passport to
be issued shall be valid for a period of one
year only. In instances where the court
permits travel abroad for a period less than
one year but does not provide any specific
duration for the validity period of the
passport, then also the passport shall be
issued for one year. Although, if the order
allows travel abroad for a period exceeding
one year without specifying the validity of
the passport, the passport shall be issued
for the duration of the travel period as
mentioned in that order. Thus, we find that
notification has been issued to grant
exemption to above class of citizens by
Government of India in purported exercise
of power vested in it under Section 22(b) of
the Act, 1967, otherwise in view of Section
6(2)(f) the passport shall have to be
refused.

 13.
The
Notification
dated
25.08.1993 was further clarified by the
Ministry of External Affairs vide its Office
Memorandum
dated
10.10.2019.
The
Office Memorandum was specifically on
the subject, "Issue of passport to
applicants against whom criminal cases
are pending before a court of law in
India". In the above mentioned office
memorandum, reference was invited to
Notification
No.
GSR
570(E)
dated
25.08.1993 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 Act, 1967. After
reproducing complete notification dated
25.08.1993, it was instructed in the office
memorandum dated 10.10.2019 that:

 "5. (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 by 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
10 All. Rahimuddin Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1023
passport cannot be issued beyond a period
of 10 years.

 (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."

 14.
Supreme
Court
has
considered the Office Memorandum dated
10.10.2019 and while reproducing the
above mentioned notification in its order
dated 20.09.2024, in the case of Rita
Verma vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 10661 of 2024, arising out of
SLP (C) No. 7481 of 2024, upheld the
notification dated 10.10.2019 and allowed
the appeal with following direction:

 "6. In this view of the matter, it is
sufficient for us to direct the authorities to
consider the application for renewal of the
passport
on
the
basis
of
Office
Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any
other subsequent Office Memorandums that
may govern the field notwithstanding the
order passed by the High Court in Writ
Petition(C)
No.6450/2024
dated
28.02.2024, upon making of an appropriate
application, the same shall be disposed of,
as expeditiously as possible."

 15. The Division Bench of this
Court at Lucknow has considered the
power of exemption under Section 22 of
the Act, 1967 as well as the notifications
issued while invoking Section 22 in the
case of Mohd. Talha vs UoI Thru. Its
Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New
Delhi And 2 Others, Neutral Citation No. -
2025:AHC-LKO:24961-DB, and it has
held that the 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. It has further held as
under:

 "(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.
 .....

 " (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
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Passport Act, 1967 and he/she would be
entitled to go abroad and for this NOC
issuance/renewal
of
the
passport
is
implicit."

 16. From the above it becomes
absolutely explicit that applicant seeking
passport if faces a criminal case, he/she
shall
have
to
obtain
permission
of
concerned criminal law court in the first
instance to travel abroad. The law further
provides that in the event applicant makes
such an application stating the period for
which he wants passport to be issued, the
court shall pass appropriate order disposing
of the same finally by both sanctioning
foreign country travel and duration for
which foreign country travel is being
permitted and for issuance of passport
accordingly.

 17. We would also like here to
consider legal right of a person seeking a
passport to travel abroad and exercise of
discretion by the authority while dealing
with such application. In our considered
view for arriving at a subjective satisfaction
to reject or grant a passport application,
there must be objective consideration of all
documents placed before the authority. In
our considered view a passport related
application is also to be disposed of timely
to enable a person to opt for other remedies
available in law in the event of refusal of
passport and in cases of one year extension
of the validity of passport, this becomes
more crucial. Supreme Court, in Satwant
Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam,
Assistant Passport Officer, 1967 SCC
OnLine SC 21, held that:

 "63. To conclude : whatever the
view of countries like the U.S.A. where
travel is a means of spending one's wealth,
the better view in our country is that a
person is ordinarily entitled to a passport
unless,
for
reasons
which
can
be
established to the satisfaction of' the Court,
the passport can be validly refused to him.
Since an aggrieved party can always ask
for a mandamus if he is treated unfairly, it
is not open, by straining the Constitution,
to create an absolute and fundamental
right to a passport where none exists in the
Constitution.
There
is
no
doubt
a
fundamental right to, equality in the matter
of grant of passports (subject to reasonable
classifications) but there is no fundamental
right to travel abroad or to the grant of a
passport. With all due respect we say that
the Court has missed one for the other. The
solution of a law of passports will not make
things any better. Even if a law were to be
made the position would hardly change
because the utmost discretion will have to
be allowed to decide upon the worth of an
applicant. The only thing that can be said is
that where the passport authority is proved
to be wrong, a mandamus will always right
the matter. In the present cases we found
no valid ground for the issuance of a
mandamus."

18. This principle was further
expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein it was
held that the right to travel is encompassed
within the ambit of the right to life and
personal
liberty,
and
that
any
administrative action impinging upon such
right must satisfy the test of fairness,
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. It
was observed by Justice M.H. Beg that:

 "193. It seems to me that there
can be little doubt that the right to travel
and to go outside the country, which orders
regulating
issue,
suspension
or
impounding, and cancellation of passports
directly affect, must be included in rights to
10 All. Rahimuddin Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1025
"personal liberty" on the strength of
decisions of this Court giving a very wide
ambit to the right to personal liberty (see :
Satwant
Singh
Sawhney
v.
D.
Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer,
Government of India, New Delhi & Ors.
AIR 1967 SC 1836, Kharak Singh v. State
of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1295."

Justice Beg further observed that:

 "226. Even executive authorities
when taking administrative action which
involves any deprivation of or restriction
on inherent fundamental rights of citizens
must take care to see that justice is not only
done but manifestly appears to be done.
They have a duty to proceed in a way which
is free from even the appearance of
arbitrariness,
unreasonableness
or
unfairness. They have to act in a manner
which is patently impartial and meets the
requirements of natural justice.'

19. To sum up the laws on the
point we observe that in matters of criminal
investigation by police pursuant to a first
information report and in matters where
criminal trial is going on, a 'No Objection'
becomes a must from the concerned police
conducting investigation and from the court
that has taken cognizance upon a police
report (chargesheet) or even has proceeded
to summon and try an accused in a
complaint case as the case may be. The
Government
of
India
has
granted
exemption to such persons with above
riders and then has prescribed limitation as
to the period for which a passport can be
issued to such persons and we see
justification in that. Both police conducting
investigation and court conducting trial
may require accused person at any point of
time. We are also of the view that in cases
where criminal trial has been stayed by a
higher court or investigation or arrest has
been stayed by high court in pending
petition
before
it,
then
no
objection/sanction/approval to visit abroad
must be obtained from such higher
court/high court as the case may be. We are
also in full agreement with the Division
Bench in it view expressed in Pawan
Kumar Rajbhar (supra) that in cases of
registration of only a Non-Cognizable
Report such no objection/sanction/approval
from police or court may not be necessary.

20. Now submissions made by
learned counsel for respective parties are
required to be dealt with in the light of
statutory provisions and also after applying
the principles of law derived from the
interpretation by courts as discussed above
in the setting of facts of this case in hand.

21.
Learned
counsel
of
the
petitioner has relied upon Pawan Kumar
Rajbhar (Supra), and after going through
the judgement, we are of the considered
view that issuing a passport for one year is
justified. Reliance was also placed by the
petitioner upon the order dated 23.10.2024
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Ishtiyak Khan (supra). In our
considered view, the reliance is misplaced
as the order passed in the Ishtiyak Khan
(supra) is based upon different facts and
circumstances which are distinguishable
from the case of petitioner.

22. It is apparent from the records
that initially the petitioner had filed an
application for grant of passport, which
request was declined due to a First
Information Report lodged against him and
police
was
conducting
investigation.
Thereafter, he approached this Court by
filing a petition being Writ C No. 30083 of
2024 and it is pursuant to the order passed
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the petition that petitioner applied for No
objection/ Sanction/Approval from the
court concerned which was issued to him
on 10.10.2024. Subsequent thereto, the
respondent no. 2 issued Passport No.
C7705116 which is for a period of one year
w.e.f., 20.01.2025 to 19.01.2026.

23. It is pertinent to mention here
that the competent law court had directed
the Regional Passport Office, Bareilly to
issue passport to the petitioner as per rules
after the petitioner submits his personal
affidavit, surety and an undertaking in the
light of conditions imposed by the court
under its order dated 10.10.2024. The order
does not specify any duration for which the
passport was to be issued.

24. Applying the above discussed
legal principles, we have no doubt in
holding that clause (a)(ii) of the notification
dated
25th
August,
1993
as
amended/modified
on
10.10.2019
is
attracted to the facts of the case. Hence, we
hold that the passport-issuing authority was
well within its power to grant passport
having validity of one year only and the
petitioner cannot demand a passport or its
renewal for ten years as a matter of right.
We have already noticed that the no
objection was granted by the competent
law court does not specify the duration for
which the passport was to be issued. We
reiterate that, where no specific period is
stated in the order of the competent court,
the passport may be issued for one year at a
time and the said period can be extended by
way of renewal as per law if the application
is made before the authorities, provided
that the applicant has not yet travelled
abroad during the court-sanctioned period
and that the court's order has not been
modified or revoked in the meantime.

25.
Recently
we
have
been
observing that this Court is flooded with
petition seeking direction to Passport
Office
to
dispose
of
their
pending
application for either issuance of a fresh
passport
or
re-issuance
(renewal)
of
passport and passport seekers even do not
wait for a notice from the passport office in
the event of any issue regarding grant of
passport application at times they even do
not give reply to the notice and directly
approach this Court for a direction.

26. Learned counsel has brought
our attention to Citizen's Charter June
2025, published by Ministry of External
Affairs Government of India, where
timeline for issue of ordinary passport is
expected up to thirty working days, which
excludes the police verification period. For
re-issuance the expected timeline is up to
seven working days and there also the
exception is provided that in cases where
police verification is required there the time
period taken in police verification is
excluded. This demonstrates that the time
required in police verification is not
stipulated while making guidelines or
expected time-line for passport application
process. In the light of the constitutional
mandate discussed above, this Court
expects that the authorities concerned,
particularly the police department, shall
ensure that all verification files pertaining
to passport applications are processed with
due diligence and completed within the
stipulated time-frame prescribed by the
Ministry of External Affairs. Any delay in
such administrative functions should be
strictly
avoided
unless
justified
by
exceptional circumstances. Delaying in
police verification, which is an essential
exercise for an accused, is creating hurdle
in realization of the right to travel, specially
10 All. Ramautar @ Ramavtar Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
1027
in cases where re-issuance of the
passport is for a duration of one year.

27. In such circumstances, in our
view, passport applicants, if find disposal
of their applications delayed, should first
reply to the notice and if they find that their
application for passport has remained
pending for their implication in criminal
case, they should first apply for necessary
no objection/sanction/approval from court
concerned, police or criminal law court, as
the case may be. The passport office should
also not linger on their matters as there may
be urgency to a passport applicant.