Petitioner challenged passport pendency. Bench disposed of application by一模一样 reasoning in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar, upholding guidelines for streamlined criminal record verification and passport issuance without court permission in NCR cases.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180288-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37888 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mritunjay Kumar Chaurasiya Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandresh Kumar Chaurasiya,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
"26. Paragraph 2 of Part A of the existing form for Police Verification Report reads:
"2. Is the applicant facing any criminal charges in any Court ? Yes / No
(if YES, please provide specific details of the criminal case)"
Thus, as to the modalities to enforce the above, as suggested by Sri A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate, henceforth all police reports submitted to the Regional Passport Office would specify against the above field the desired/relevant information as below:
(1) In 'Part A' of the Police Verification Report (submitted through online mode), against item '2', for the time being, option 'YES' may be selected in all cases where either a NCR and/or FIR may be found registered against the applicant. Second in that field (that may then be activated), details of such NCR and/or FIR may be given on the following format:
NCR No. ………… ; P.S; …………………
AND/OR
FIR No……………. ; U/s …………...(section description); P.S. (details of Police Station), …………... under Court (Court details)………………………….
27. On the above intimation being received, the Regional Passport Offices, for the State of Uttar Pradesh shall ensure: (1) Such minimum information is uploaded on its web portal visible to the individual applicant. In addition, whenever any FIR may be registered, that web portal would
indicate to the applicant to apply and obtain permission from the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction, before his application may be processed. (2) That information may also be communicated to the applicant by issuance of a physical notice as before. (3) The Union of India/respondent No. 1 may upgrade its infrastructure to (i) ensure sending intimation of such notice to the applicant through appropriate message on his mobile phone, wherever such details are available. (ii) upload the entire notice on its web portal. Demand of good e-governance may prompt such step to be taken expeditiously, as has already been done in case of fiscal statutes. (4) As fairly stated by the learned A.S.G.I., in cases where any NCR may be registered, the necessary Passport may be issued, reissued, renewed, as the case may be, without any delay. No permission may be sought or required from the competent court of criminal jurisdiction, in those cases.
28. Considering the time required by an applicant to apply to the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction and the time that may be consumed in grant of such prayer, the Regional Passport Office, Uttar Pradesh may also ensure that the intimation of pendency of criminal proceeding is shared with the applicant at the earliest i.e. within one week from the date of receipt of such intimation from the relevant State Authority. Thereupon, adequate time-not less than eight weeks may be granted to the concerned applicant to obtain that permission and inform the Regional Passport Office, accordingly. During that period his application may be kept pending. Once due permission is received the Regional Passport Officer may not delay the issuance, re-issuance, renewal of passport beyond one week from receipt of such information.
29. As to the further course to be adopted we do not make any observation and leave it to the Regional Passport Officer and the State Authorities to continue to act in accordance with law. In that regard, we have been apprised of certain directions issued by other High Courts requiring a deep revision of the procedures. The present order does not seek to add or modify any such order. We only seek to ensure efficiency under the current procedures.
30. Last we clarify that these directions have been issued in addition to and not by way of substitution of any direction issued in the case of Basoo Yadav (supra).
31. In so far as the present petitioners are concerned, we require the State Authorities to send fresh intimation to the Regional Passport Officer in compliance of these directions, within a period of two weeks from today. The Regional Passport Office shall act in accordance with these directions and issue necessary communications to the individual petitioners, in writing.
32. Since two month time has been granted to all individual applicants, therefore, subject to the petitioners applying to the concerned Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of intimation from the Regional Passport Office, we expect the concerned Courts to pass appropriate orders not later than four weeks therefrom. However, in cases involving urgency, those orders may be made expeditiously, commensurate to the urgency cited."
Order Date :- 18.11.2024/A Gautam
(Donadi Ramesh,J.) (S.D. Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors.Referred¶3
Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India & 2 Ors. [Neutral Citation No- 2024:AHC:9963-DB]
Mritunjay Kumar Chaurasiya
Union Of India
Saumitra Dayal Singh
Donadi Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
