Disposed¶26

Ameer Khalid v. Union of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Mar 2026WRIC/3011/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport renewal; mandamus; Office Memorandum No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019; Rita Verma v. Union of India (Supreme Court, SLP(C) No.7481 of 2024, order dated 20.09.2024); Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India (Allahabad HC DB, Writ-C No.41540 of 2023, 2024:AHC:9963-DB); Smt. Rita Verma (Allahabad HC DB, Writ-C No.6450 of 2024, 2024:AHC:35201DB); Ministry of External Affairs; Lucknow Bench; disposal in terms of Supreme Court directions; expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for re-issuing the passport on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent office memorandum governing the field, expeditiously and in accordance with law. ¶26

Ameer Khalid vs Union of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the opposite parties, especially opposite party no.2, to renew the petitioner's passport, pending for renewal since 15.02.2026 and expiring on 04.04.2026. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The authorities are required to consider the petitioner's application for re-issuing the passport on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent office memorandum that may govern the field, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally dealt with this issue in Rita Verma.

¶22

Key takeaways

The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma shall apply in the present case; the authorities are directed to act expeditiously in accordance with law in the subject matter.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ameer Khalid v. Union of India (WRIT - C No. 3011 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, decided 31.03.2026; Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.). Writ petition seeking mandamus for renewal of the petitioner's passport pending since 15.02.2026 (expiry 04.04.2026). Counsel relied on the Division Bench ruling in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (Writ-C No.41540 of 2023, 2024:AHC:9963-DB); the respondents pointed out it stood modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma (SLP(C) No.7481 of 2024, order dated 20.09.2024), wherein the Supreme Court directed consideration of passport renewal applications on the basis of Office Memorandum No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019 or subsequent office memorandums, notwithstanding the High Court's order in Writ-C No.6450 of 2024 (Smt. Rita Verma, 2024:AHC:35201DB). Following the Supreme Court's decision, this Court held that the authorities must consider the petitioner's re-issue application on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any subsequent office memorandum governing the field, and directed expeditious action in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3011 of 2026

Ameer Khalid

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Sanjeet Verma	Kumar	Patel,	Sudhanshu
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I.,	C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & DSGI assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):

¶13

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties, more especially the opposite party no.2, to renew the passport of the petitioner, which is pending before him for renewal since 15.02.2026, and the same will be expired on 04.04.2026, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be disposed of in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar versus Union of India and 2 others ; Writ-C No.41540 of 2023 : Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:9963-DB.

¶15

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is controverted by Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent(s). His submission is that the judgment of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra) has been modified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma vs. Union of India and others ; Petition(s) Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7481 of 2024 vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2024.

¶16

WRIC No. 3011 of 2026

¶17

¶18

It may be noted that in Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union of India and others ; Writ-C No.6450 of 2024; Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:35201DB, the Division Bench of this Court had reiterated the ratio of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra). However, after examining the entire position with regard to the Memorandum No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma (supra) has directed as follows:-

¶19

"4. In spite of the clear wordings in the Memo, the High Court by the order impugned herein came to a conclusion that the office Memorandum is contrary to the statutory position and proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶20

5. We have heard Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, appearing for the appellant as also Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the approach adopted by the High Court that the Office Memorandum is contrary to the statutory positions and is not supported by law and it is also not the stand of the Union of India. Learned Additional Solicitor General expressed no difficulty in processing the application of the appellant on the basis of the Office Memorandum.

¶21

6. In this view of the matter, it is sufficient for us to direct the authorities to consider the application for renewal of the passport on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent Office Memorandums that may govern the field notwithstanding the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.6450/2024 dated 28.02.2024, upon making of an appropriate application, the same shall be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible."

¶22

In light of the above finding(s) of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the authorities are required to consider the application of the petitioner for re-issuing passport on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent office memorandum that may govern the field as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally dealt with this issue in Rita Verma (supra). The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

¶23

WRIC No. 3011 of 2026

¶24

¶25

Court in Rita Verma (supra) shall apply in the present case, therefore, we direct the authorities to act expeditiously in accordance with law in the subject matter.

¶26

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶28

March 31, 2026

¶29

Ashutosh

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ameer Khalid v. Union of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameer Khalid v. Union of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Ramesh Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Mahranidin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Shyam Sunder Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and and 4 Others

M/S Shree Keshav Store Thru. Auth. Jank Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and Another

Rajneesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others