# Rajendra Bihari Lal v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 476
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-09
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 36038 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-bihari-lal-v-union-of-india-ors-50311
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Passport Act, 1967 - Section 6 -
Refusal of passports - Criminal case
pending As per the legislative mandate of
Clauses (e), (f), and (g) of sub-Section (2)
of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, the
passport authority shall refuse to issue a
passport
or
travelling
document
for
visiting any foreign country on the ground
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (i). Opening
words of sub-Section (2) of Section 6 are
that "subject to the other provisions of
this Act." therefore, the passport or
travelling document may be issued by the
passport authority if an applicant obtains
permission from the concerned court
where the criminal case is pending, in
terms of Notification No. GSR 570(E).-I,
dated
25.08.1993,
issued
by
the
Government. It is mandatory for an
applicant to obtain permission from the
court where the applicant is facing trial.
(Para 11)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 6 ILRA 476
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ-C No. 36038 of 2022

Rajendra Bihari Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anuj Srivastava, Sri Amit Negi, Sri Gopal
Swaroop Chaturvedi (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gopal Verma

Civil Law - Passport Act, 1967 - Section 6 -
Refusal of passports - Criminal case
pending As per the legislative mandate of
Clauses (e), (f), and (g) of sub-Section (2)
of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, the
passport authority shall refuse to issue a
passport
or
travelling
document
for
visiting any foreign country on the ground
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (i). Opening
words of sub-Section (2) of Section 6 are
that "subject to the other provisions of
this Act." therefore, the passport or
travelling document may be issued by the
passport authority if an applicant obtains
permission from the concerned court
where the criminal case is pending, in
terms of Notification No. GSR 570(E).-I,
dated
25.08.1993,
issued
by
the
Government. It is mandatory for an
applicant to obtain permission from the
court where the applicant is facing trial.
(Para 11)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs Central
Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No(s).
1342 of 2017, dated 27.09.2021
2. Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of
Mah. & anr.., Writ Petition No. 384 of 2019,
dated 23.08.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

1.
Heard
Shri
Gopal
Swaroop
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted by Shri Amit Negi, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor General of
India assisted by Sri Gopal Verma, learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that the petitioner has filed an
application for renewal of his passport.
Since no order was passed on his renewal
application, therefore, the petitioner filed a
Writ - C No. - 22637 of 2020 (Rajendra
Bihari Lal Vs. Union Of India and another)
which was disposed of by order dated
16.12.2020
directing
the
concerned
Passport Authority to pass an order or in
the event, order has already been passed
then same be communicated. Thereafter,
the respondent no.2 passed the impugned
orders dated 06.06.2022 and 29.06.2022.
By the impugned order dated 29.06.2022,
the respondent no.2 has declined to issue
passport to the petitioner on the ground of
adverse police report based on several
criminal
cases registered against the
petitioner but granted liberty to submit "no
objection" of the concerned court to issue
passport.

3. It has also been admitted before us
by learned counsel for the petitioner that
6 All. Rajendra Bihari Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
477
after filing of the present writ petition
seven more criminal cases have been
registered against the petitioner.

4.
Learned
Additional
Solicitor
General states on instructions that at
present 18 criminal cases are registered
against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has heavily relied upon a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No(s). 1342 of 2017 (Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation) decided on
27.09.2021 and a judgment of Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No.384 of
2019 (Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.)
decided on 23.08.2022.

6. We have carefully perused the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1342 of 2017
(Vangala
Kasturi
Rangacharyulu
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation) decided on
27.09.2021 and we find that the appellant
before
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
was
convicted in a Criminal Case and his appeal
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pending in which an I.A. No.52346 of 2021
was filed seeking permission/direction for
issuance of passport.

7. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu
(supra) passed on an I.A. No.52346 of
2021 is reproduced below :

"UPON hearing the counsel the
Court made the following
O R D E R

IA 52346/2021 in Crl.A. No.
1343/2017

The applicant was convicted for
offences punishable under Sections 120B,420, 468, 471, 477 A of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 13 (2) read with
Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal filed by
him was dismissed by the High Court.
However, the sentence was reduced to a
period of one year.

The application for exemption
from surrendering filed by the applicant
was allowed. Leave was granted in the
criminal appeal filed by the applicant on
12.07.2017.
The
appeal
is
pending
consideration.

In the meanwhile, the applicant
has filed this application for a direction to
the respondent to give no objection for
renewal of his passport which expired on
12.11.2017. The applicant has contended
that the application filed by him for
renewal of passport was not considered. In
spite of his repeated efforts, including filing
of an application under the Right to
Information Act, he was not informed the
reason for non renewal of his passport. It is
averred in the application filed for
direction that the application was orally
informed that the renewal of the passport
was not being done due to the pendency of
the criminal appeal in this Court.

Mr. J.K.Sud, learned Additional
Solicitor
General
appearing
for
the
respondent oppose the application and
submitted that renewal of passport can be
only after application obtains permission
from the concerned trial court. He referred
to Section 6.2 of the Passport Act, 1967
and argued that the passport authority has
the power to refuse issuance of the passport
in view of the pendency of the criminal
appeal filed by him. He submitted that subSection 6.2 (e) and (f) of the Passport Act,
1967 would be applicable to this case and
the applicant is not entitled to seek renewal
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passport without obtaining permission from
the trial court.

Section 6.2 of the Passports Act,
1967 reads as follows:
x x x x x x x x x x

(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.

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

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

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

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

(emphasis supplied by us)

8. The judgment of Bombay High
Court in Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala
(supra) heavily relied by learned counsel
for the petitioner is reproduced below :

"1. The Petitioner had applied
for
renewal
of
the
Passport.
Said
application is not being entertained for the
reason that the Petitioner should obtain a
permission from the Court where a
6 All. Rajendra Bihari Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
479
criminal case is pending against the
Petitioner.

2. Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that for renewal of the
Passport, permission from the Court where
a criminal case is pending against the
Petitioner, is not necessary. If a criminal
case is pending, then the only limitation
would be, the Petitioner can not travel
abroad without the permission from the
Court where a criminal case is pending
against the Petitioner. He relies upon
order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal No.1342/2017 dated 27.9.2021.

3. Learned Counsel for the Union
relies upon Notification dated 25.8.1993
and Section 6.2 (f) of the Passport Act,
1967, to conclude that the Petitioner has to
obtain a permission of the Court where
criminal case is pending against the
Petitioner for the purpose of issuance of the
Passport. It will be a case of issuance of
the Passport and not renewal of the
Passport.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner
that validity of the Passport came to an end
in the year 2017. The Petitioner applied for
renewal and said application is pending for
more than 4 years. It is also a fact that a
criminal case is pending against the
Petitioner u/s 420, 465, 467 r/w 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code.

5. In view of the fact that
petitioner is already issued a Passport
earlier and the Petitioner would be
seeking renewal of the Passport and the
said application is pending with the
Respondent, so also, considering the Order
passed by the Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal No.1342/2017 (supra) we pass the
following order.

Order

i) The Respondent shall process
the application of the petitioner for renewal
of Passport without insisting for permission
of the Court, where a criminal case is
pending against the Petitioner. If the
Petitioner is travelling abroad, then the
Petitioner would be required to seek
permission from the Court where criminal
case is pending.

ii) Decision shall be taken as
observed above, within 2 months.

iii) The impugned communication
is quashed and set aside.

iv) If as per procedure on-line
application is required to be made, the
same shall be made by the Petitioner.

6. The petition is disposed of.

7. No costs."

(emphasis supplied by us)

9. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi
Rangacharyulu (supra) is of no help to
the petitioner on facts of the present case
inasmuch as some criminal cases against
the petitioner are pending before the trial
court while in some criminal cases
investigation is in process. In the aforesaid
judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that Section 6(2) (f) of the Passport Act,
1967 relates to a situation where the
applicant is facing trial in a Criminal Court.
In the present set of facts the petitioner is
facing trial in a Criminal Court. Thus the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu
(supra) is of no help to the petitioner.

10. So far as observations in the
judgment of Bombay High Court in Abbas
Hatimbhai Kagalwala (supra) directing
to process passport renewal application
without insisting for permission of the
court where a criminal case is pending, is
concerned we do not agree as it is in
conflict with Section 6(2)(e)/(f)/(g) and
Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 and
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Notification No.GSR 570(E).-I, dated
25.08.1993. In the aforesaid case the
Bombay High Court has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra), which
was passed by the Apex Court on I.A.
No.52346 of 2021 filed in the Criminal
Appeal
pending
before
it,
seeking
permission/direction
for
issuance
of
passport. For ready reference Clauses (e),
(f) and (g) of sub Section (2) of Section 6
of the Passport Act, 1967, are reproduced
below :

"(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)....

(b)....

(c)....

(d)....

(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;"

11. Thus, as per legislative mandate of
Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of sub Section (2) of
Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, the
passport authority shall refuse to issue a
passport or travelling document for visiting
any foreign country on the ground
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (i). The
opening words of sub Section (2) of
Section 6 are that "subject to the other
provisions of this Act". Therefore, the
passport or travelling document may be
issued by the passport authority if an
applicant obtains permission from the
concerned court where the criminal case is
pending, in terms of Section 22 read with
Notification
No.GSR
570(E).-I,
dated
25.08.1993 issued by the Government in
exercise of powers conferred under Clause
(a) of the Section 22 of the Passport Act,
1967. It is settled law that a writ of
mandamus can not be issued in conflict
with the statutory provisions. Consequently
writ of mandamus can not be issued in
favour of the petitioner and against the
Passport Authority, in conflict with the
aforequoted Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of sub
Section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport
Act, 1967. If Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of
sub Section (2) of Section 6 of the
Passport
Act,
1967
are
differently
interpreted then it may render redundant
the said provisions on one hand and on
the other hand it may adversely effect
completion
of
investigation
and
conclusion of trial in a criminal case.
Thus to enable the passport authority to
lift the statutory mandate of refusal
contained in Section 6(2) of the Passport
Act, 1967 to issue a passport or a travel
document,
it
is
mandatory
for
an
applicant to obtain permission from the
Court where the applicant is facing trial,
in terms of Section 22 read with the
Notification No.GSR 570(E).-I, dated
25.08.1993.
6 All. Sri Raju Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
481

12. We also find that the impugned
order is appealable under Section 11 of The
Passport Act, 1967, therefore, the petitioner
may avail the remedy of Appeal. He may
also apply for permission before the
concerned Court under Section 22 of the
The
Passport
Act,
1967
read
with
Notification
No.GSR
570(E).-I,
dated
25.08.1993.

13. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is dismissed leaving it
open for the petitioner to avail alternative
remedy of appeal. If the petitioner files an
appeal before the Appellate Authority
under Section 11 of The Passport Act, 1967
within three weeks from today alongwith a
certified copy of this order, the appeal of
the petitioner shall be entertained by the
Appellate Authority without raising any
objection as to the limitation.

14. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of the case
of the petitioner.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 481
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ-C No. 36353 of 2019
Connected With
Writ-C No. 36276 of 2019
and
Writ-C No. 40800 of 2019
and
Writ-C No. 36362 of 2019

Sri Raju ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, Sri Ramesh
Chandra Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 67 & 67A - Section 67A of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, provides that in case
a house exists over land referred to in
Section 63 of the Code, having been built
prior to November 29, 2012, the housing
site can be settled with its owner on such
terms and conditions as may be specified.
Held - Merely because a person lower in
order of preference has encroached upon
Gaon Sabha land, he cannot and should not
be granted the benefit of Section 67A unless
and until he is in a position to establish
categorically that a
person
higher in
preference is not available in the village. In
the
instant
case,
Petitioners
in
their
applications u/s 67A, nowhere have stated
that no agricultural labourers or village
artisans belonging to the scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe are residing in village, which
was necessarily required to be pleaded by
them. (Para 14, 15)

B. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006- Sections 67 &
67A - Impugned order passed in proceedings
u/s 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for
eviction
of
the
petitioners.
Petitioners
pleaded that they are agricultural labourers
and since they are occupants of land, they
were entitled to the benefit of Section 67A of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Held: Land
from where the petitioners have been
ordered to be evicted is recorded as 'Banjar'.
It has not been earmarked as an abadi site
and is therefore, not land referred to under
Section 63 of the Code. Therefore, the
petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of
Section 67A. Also none of the petitioners
belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled
tribe. (Para 11, 16)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.)