Safat Husain Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17781-DB

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1990 of 2025 Petitioner :- Safat Husain Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

1.) Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶6

2.) Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and D.S.G.I. assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for the Union of India.

¶7

3.) On 06.03.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶8

"1. Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and D.S.G.I. assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned Counsel for the Union of India.

¶9

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order of the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow according to which the police report is not in favour of the petitioner on account of pendency of four criminal cases details of which have been given by the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 11 to 14 of the writ petition. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of a writ petition bearing Writ C No.3119 of 2024, which was disposed of on 24.05.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the trial court where criminal proceedings are pending against him to seek permission to go abroad, if such permission is granted then the petitioner may move an application before the competent authority for issuance of a passport, which shall be considered in light of the provisions of the Passport Act,1967 and the law settled by Delhi High Court in the case of Prashant Bhushan vs. Union of India and Another in W.P.(C) No.1524 of 2015 dated 07.01.2016 . The petitioner filed the said judgment alongwith an application seeking permission to go abroad before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.16, DistrictBarabanki but the petitioner's application has been disposed of with the observation that the petitioner-Safat Husain has already been enlarged on bail on 07.03.2024 and none of the bail conditions imposed any restrictions on him in going abroad, therefore, he does not want to make any comment regarding the petitioner going abroad or being restrained from going abroad and the petitioner is free to go abroad as per his wishes. With respect, the court below has absolutely misconstrued the judgment of this Court dated 24.05.2024 passed in the case of petitioner himself wherein a notification dated 25.08.1993 which is referable to Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967 has been quoted, which requires a permission to be taken specifically from the Court where the criminal case is pending for going abroad and for issuance of passport. The officer, it seems did not read the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court properly.

¶10

3. Let an explanation be called from the said officer through the District Judge, Barabanki as to how he has passed such an order. He would be better advised to go through our judgment dated 15.01.2025 passed in Writ C No.281 of 2025 (Sanjay Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and Another) as also the judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed in Writ C No.10199 of 2024 (Shakeel Ahmed vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And Another) before submitting his explanation as to how he has passed such an order in spite of the earlier judgment dated 24.05.2024 especially when the Division Bench had asked the petitioner to move an application before the trial court seeking permission to go abroad, which necessarily imposed an obligation upon the trial court to consider such matter either granting or refusing permission to go abroad in terms of the notification dated 25.08.1993 and subsequent notification dated 10.10.2019, which have statutory backing. The explanation be submitted in a sealed cover before the next date. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to do the needful.

¶11

4. List/put up this case on 24.03.2025 as fresh."

¶12

4.) The Officer who had passed the order dated 21.09.2024 has

¶13

furnished his explanation dated 20.03.2025 in an envelope which has been read.

¶14

5.) A confusion has arisen on account of the orders dated 21.09.2024 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 16, Barabanki, as we have already noticed hereinabove. As, there were two criminal cases against the petitioner, therefore, two separate orders dated 21.09.2024 have been passed by the said Officer, disposing of the application with the observation that no such restriction has been put in the bail order, therefore, the petitioner is free to go wherever he wants, however, oblivious of the fact that specific order should have been passed either granting the permission specifically in the light of our judgments and the notifications referred in the above quoted order, or it should have been denied, as the case may be, giving valid reasons. He has submitted an explanation which we accept, but we cannot sustain the orders dated 21.09.2024, therefore, exercising our inherent powers, the said orders are set aside.

¶15

6.) The Court below is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad, as, in such permission, the renewal of passport would be implicit, meaning thereby, if the permission is granted then the said order shall be placed before the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, who shall consider the same, ignoring the order dated 21.09.2024. However, if it is not granted, then the remedy as prescribed in law would be available.

¶16

7.) The fresh decision shall be taken by the Court below strictly in the light of our judgments referred in the order dated 06.03.2025 and the notifications referred herein, which shall be placed by the petitioner before the Court below. Once such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at the earliest, say within a period of 15 days.

¶17

8.) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Lokesh Kumar

¶19

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶20

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Safat Husain v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safat Husain v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Hindustan Fibre Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Registered Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Vs U.O.I. Thru. Its General Manager Modern Coach Factory Raebareli and 3 Others

M/S Prakash Machinery Stores Thru. Proprietorgyan Prakash Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. State Tax Lko. and Another

Mujtaba Ali Khan and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 3 Others

Master Mohd Umar Thru. His Real Mother Smt. Aksha Azeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Civil Secretariate Lko. and 2 Others

Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Sitapur Thru. Secy. Subhash Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy and 3 Others