Disposed¶19

Teepu Sultan v. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025/9273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal refused/delayed; NCR No.59/24 under Section 115(2), 352 BNS (323, 504 IPC); Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur; partibandi; explanation dated 19.03.2025; mandamus to passport authority; direction to decide within three weeks; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; disposed September 23, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party no.2 to consider the petitioner's reply and pass the order within three weeks; writ petition disposed of on that basis. ¶19

Teepu Sultan Vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9273 of 2025

Teepu Sultan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, Sneha Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 2

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶10

"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to take decision on the application of the petitioner dated 21.02.2025 and issue/ renew the passport of the petitioner further period of ten years."

¶11

Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been accepted by Shri Varun Pandey and for opposite parties no.3 and 4 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that he was issued passport no.N260118 on 27.8.2015 for a period of 10 years and petitioner is doing job in Saudi Arabia. The petitioner came in the village and due to partibandi one NCR No.59/24 under Section 115 (2), 352 BNS in Police Station - Kurebhar, District - Sultanpur was lodged by complainant Mahmood Ahmad Khan.

¶13

It has been submitted that offences shown in NCR are not cognizable offence and sureties has been filed by the petitioner and more than six months have passed. The Opposite party no.2 issued letter dated 07.03.2025 mentioning that there is one NCR lodged against the petitioner under Section 323, 504 IPC (115 (2), 352 BNS) and called explanation from the petitioner. After receiving of the letter petitioner submitted explanation on 19.03.2025 mentioning all the facts but no order

¶14

WRIC No. 9273 of 2025

¶15

¶16

has been passed.

¶17

On the other hand Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for Union of India has submitted that the petitioner has given the reply and same should be considered by the appropriate authority - opposite party no.2.

¶18

Since the petitioner has already submitted the reply opposite party no.2 is directed to consider the reply and pass the order within a period of three weeks.

¶19

With the aforesaid the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶21

September 23, 2025 mks

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Teepu Sultan v. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teepu Sultan v. U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Virendra Bahadur Singh Thru. Sole Proprietor Virendra Bahadur Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Shabina Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

M/S Satgur Traders Thru. Its Proprietor Ramji Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs Election Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chief Election Commissioner and 5 Others

Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sachin Kumar Shahi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others