Uvaidullah vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

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 to 3.

¶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 directing the respondents, particularly the Embassy of India in Kuwait, to consider and decide the petitioner's application for renewal of passport bearing Application Reference No.25-2055268439 forthwith and to renew the passport of the petitioner within a stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. Copy of the passport is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this petition."

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an F.I.R./Case Crime No. 390 of 2017 under Sections 115 (2), 351 (3), 333 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (va), 3 (v) of the S.C./S.T. Act Police StationKaisarganj, District- Bahraich is pending against the petitioner,

¶14

WRIC No. 4387 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

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 .

¶17

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.

¶18

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:35201-DB, 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

¶21

WRIC No. 4387 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

of the Office Memorandum.

¶24

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."

¶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

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

¶28

April 30, 2026

¶29

Anuj Singh

¶30

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

Uvaidullah v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uvaidullah v. Union of India Thru. 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

Suman Tiwari vs the State U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

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

Satish Yadav vs Reserve Bank of India Having Its Office Thru. Governor and 2 Others

Shrikant Shukla vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Thru. Bank Manager Lko.

Ved Prakash vs District Magistrate,Sultanpur and 2 Others

Den Network Limited Thru. Authorised Representative/Power of Attorney Holder Faheem Ahmad Idrisi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Institutional Finance Lko. and 2 Others