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

1. Heard Ms. Kulsoom Firoz, 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 a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing opposite party No.2 to decide the application dt. 16.10.2025 vide Filing No. LKG066008362225 of by issuing a passport in the name of the petitioner within a stipulated time and period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for securing of justice. Copy of the Passport Online Application Receipt has been annexed herewith as Annexure No.1 to this petition.."

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a trial regarding F.I.R./Case Crime No. 226 of 2024 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Tambaur District- Sitapur is pending 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 .

¶14

WRIC No. 4383 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

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.

¶17

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:-

¶18

"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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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."

¶21

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

¶22

WRIC No. 4383 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

April 28, 2026 Anuj Singh

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafeesa Khatoon v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs 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

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

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

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