Disposed

Salauddin v. UOI Thru.Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2026WRIC/4360/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for passport renewal dismissed pending criminal case. Court directed authorities to consider the application expeditiously in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment in Rita Verma based on the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to consider the application for passport renewal expeditiously in accordance with law and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019.

Salauddin vs UOI Thru.Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 4360 of 2026

Salauddin

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Uoi Thru.Its Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs New Delhi And 2 Others .

¶7

ew e n ers .	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dilip Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

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

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & DSGI assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 & 2.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main relief(s):

¶12

"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties specially opposite party no-2 to renew the Passport bearing no-N2118914 and renew Application file ARN No-25-2003830272 dated 30.07.2025 in favor of the petitioner in accordance with law as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rita Verma VS Union of India and other; Petition(s) Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7481 of 2024, with a fixed time frame for securing the interest of justice..

¶13

ii. Issuing an order or direction in in any nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner and renew the Passport bearing noN2118914 and renew Application file ARN No-25-2003830272 dated 30.07.2025 to the petitioner irrespective of criminal case pending i.e. case crime no-134/2017, case no- 162/2018 U/S 147,323,504,506,427 IPC PS Raniganj District-Pratapgarh, for securing the interest of justice."

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that c ase no- 162/2018 U/S 147,323,504,506,427 IPC PS Raniganj District-Pratapgarh is pending

¶15

WRIC No. 4360 of 2026

¶16

¶17

against the petitioner, however, 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 .

¶18

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.

¶19

5. 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:-

¶20

"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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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."

¶23

WRIC No. 4360 of 2026

¶24

¶25

6. 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 issuance of fresh 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 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

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

¶27

April 28, 2026

¶28

Anuj Singh

¶29

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

¶30

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

Salauddin v. UOI Thru.Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salauddin v. UOI Thru.Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Comm. and Secy. Board. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Jamiluddin Alias Kalu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Uma Devi and Another vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. of Revenue Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Archana Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Nafeesa Khatoon vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Smt.Pushpa Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others