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 this very Division Bench in Writ-C No.8874 of 2024 'Shah Alam vs. Union of India & Ors.' on the same subject. However, in the same vein, he has also referred to another 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 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 Co-ordinate 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 concept of per incuriam would come into play.
