Irfan Khan Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. External Affair New Delhi and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6101-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 862 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Irfan Khan

¶5

Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. External Affair New Delhi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Shukla,Prachi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varun Pandey appearing for opposite parties.

¶8

It is an admitted case of the petitioner that though initially a non-cognizable report was registered but thereafter investigation was held as per law and then a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner in the court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the petitioner will have to seek no objection certificate/permission from the court of competent jurisdiction where the trial is pending.

¶9

Learned counsel for the concerned opposite parties submits that admittedly one criminal trial is pending against the petitioner as is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, on account of which, the passport cannot be renewed/re-issued in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 (in short 'the Act, 1967'). However, he has fairly informed the Court that certain exemptions have been granted in this regard vide Notification bearing GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993 which has been reiterated by a recent Notification dated 10.10.2019. These notifications are statutory in nature and have been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Clause-(a) of Section 22 of the Act, 1967 and are in supersession of earlier Notification dated

¶10

14.04.1976. According to the said Notification, if the petitioner gets a No-Objection Certificate/permission from the court where the criminal cases are pending then a short validity passport can be reissued to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid Notifications. However, as of now, no such permission has been taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also invited our attention to earlier decisions of this Court such as decision dated 20.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.31723 (M/B) of 2018, Salim Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, wherein this aspect as also GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 was taken into consideration as also decision of Delhi High Court and thereafter, direction was issued to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial was pending against him seeking permission to go abroad. Consequential direction was also issued for consideration of issuance of passport if such permission is granted by the court below. He has also placed before us another Division Bench judgment dated 03.12.2022 rendered in Writ-C No.8621 of 2022, Shiv Shankar Vs. Union of India and others, wherein similar view has been taken after considering the 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 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.3617 of 2022, Smt. Rashmi Kapoor vs. Union of India and others, 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 and others on the same subject. However, in the same vein, he has also referred to

¶11

another judgment dated 25.06.2024 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-C No.5587 of 2024, Umapati Vs. Union of India and others, 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 others Vs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and others dated 06.09.2023; National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which in fact is a Constitution Bench judgment on the same issue; Chandra Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. (2002) 4 SCC 234; Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754; Pradip Chandra Parija and others Vs. 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

¶12

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.

¶13

We are conscious of the fact that the said case may proceed like a complaint case but even then the proceedings are pending, therefore, the law referred in the aforesaid decisions will apply.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that petitioner should seek requisite No-Objection Certificate/permission from the court of criminal jurisdiction where the aforesaid criminal trial is pending trial and if the No Objection Certificate or permission is granted by the trial court, then the Regional Passport Officer shall take a decision on the application of the petitioner dated 21.10.2024 for renewal/re-issuance of passport in the light of the aforesaid Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 at the earliest say within three weeks of submission of such No Objection Certificate/permission. However, if the permission/No Objection Certificate is not granted then of course, the matter shall rest as it is with further opportunity to the petitioner to raise grievance before the appropriate forum. While considering the application of the petitioner for grant of No-Objection Certificate/permission, the court below shall consider his claim in the light of Notifications dated 25.08.1993 and 10.10.2019 and the judgments and the decisions cited herein-above wherein directions have been issued to seek such permission from the court where the criminal case is pending copy of which shall be provided by the petitioner to the court below.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 A nuj S ingh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Irfan Khan v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. External Affair New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Khan v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. External Affair 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramu Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Ramu Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Anoop and 76 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj and 5 Others

Virendra Dutta Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and Another

Abu Sahama and 3 Others Vs Ziladhikari District Balrampur and 3 Others

Mohd. Shambeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others