Disposed¶18

Mohd. Akram v. Union of India Thru. Chief Passport Officer New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2026WRIC/12467/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport refusal; show-cause notice for concealment of facts dated 22.05.2025; incorrect police verification report; Regional Passport Officer Lucknow; Passport Act 1967; criminal cases concluded before application; impleadment of SP Unnao and SHO P.S. Makhi, Unnao; cost and compensation; interim directions; fresh listing 12.02.2026; Mohd. Akram v. Union of India; WRIT - C 12467 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted at this stage; interim directions issued (impleadment of SP, Unnao and SHO, P.S. Makhi, Unnao; instructions to be sought through Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.; matter listed fresh on 12.02.2026). ¶18

Mohd. Akram vs Union of India Thru. Chief Passport Officer New Delhi and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause notice dated 22.05.2025 alleging concealment of facts was justified although, per the petitioner, all five criminal cases pending against him had already been concluded and decided before he applied for the passport under the Passport Act, 1967. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court directed that a copy of the petition be provided to Shri Rahul Kapoor, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., who shall seek instructions from the newly impleaded opposite parties as to the correct factual position.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the petitioner to implead the Superintendent of Police, Unnao as well as the Station House Officer, Police Station Makhi, Unnao as opposite parties during the course of the day.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court required the newly impleaded opposite parties to explain why, if it is found that the criminal cases were not pending on the date of sending of the police verification report nor on the date of submission of the application, cost should not be imposed for such act, apart from compensation, if any.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 12467 of 2025 - Mohd. Akram v. Union of India (through Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi) and 2 Others - interim order dated February 2, 2026 (Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.). The petitioner contended that all five criminal cases pending against him had been concluded and decided before he applied for a passport under the Passport Act, 1967 and rules made thereunder, yet a show-cause notice dated 22.05.2025 alleging concealment of facts was issued and, despite his response, no decision had been taken and the passport had not been issued. Learned counsel for the Regional Passport Officer stated that the concerned police station had been asked to clarify why an incorrect police verification report was sent to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, resulting in the show-cause notice. The Court directed impleadment of the Superintendent of Police, Unnao and the Station House Officer, Police Station Makhi, Unnao as opposite parties, delivery of a copy of the petition to Shri Rahul Kapoor, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., to seek instructions on the correct factual position and on why cost should not be imposed (apart from compensation, if any) if the criminal cases were not pending on the relevant dates, and listed the matter fresh on 12.02.2026. No precedent cited; no substantive relief or monetary award at this stage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 12467 of 2025

Mohd. Akram

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Chief Passport Officer New Delhi And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: O.P. Tiwari, Ashish Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., CSC

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to applying for a passport under The Passport Act, 1967 and rules made thereunder, all five cases which were pending had already been concluded and decided, therefore there was no criminal case pending on the said date yet a show-cause-notice has been issued on 22.05.2025 alleging concealment of facts and in spite of a response having been submitted no decision has been taken as yet and passport has not been issued to him.

¶13

Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the Regional Passport Officer, says that the concerned police station has been asked to clarify as to why, if the criminal cases have already been concluded, an incorrect police verification report was sent to the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow resulting into issuance of the show-cause-notice dated 22.05.2025.

¶14

Let the petitioner implead Superintendent of Police, Unnao as well as Station House Officer, Police Station Makhi, Unnao as opposite parties during course of the day and provide a copy of the petition to Shri Rahul Kapoor, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., who shall seek instructions from the newly impleaded opposite parties as to the correct factual position and why, if it is found that the criminal cases were not pending on the date of sending of the police verification report nor on the

¶15

WRIC No. 12467 of 2025

¶16

¶17

date of submission of application, cost be not imposed for such act, apart from compensation, if any.

¶18

List on 12.02.2026, as fresh.

¶19

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶20

February 2, 2026

¶21

MVS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Akram v. Union of India Thru. Chief Passport Officer New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akram v. Union of India Thru. Chief Passport Officer New Delhi and 2 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

A and G Hospitality Services Thru. Owner/Proprietor Surinder Singh Gandhi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 6 Others

Babulal vs State Bank of India , Alambagh , Lko. Thru. Authorised Officer / Branch Manager and Others

Surya Pratap Singh and Another vs Bank of Baroda Thru. Managing Dir. Baroda and 3 Others

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Kanpur Thru Its Incharge/ P.I.O. Satish Kumar vs State Information Commissioner Rti Bhawan Lko. and Another

Shilpi Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and Another

Surya Prakash Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others