Disposed¶27

Varish Ali v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. External Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2026WRIC/495/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport re-issuance; mandamus to consider Application No. 25-0067758361 dated 07-10-2025; Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 (Memo No. VI/401/1/5/2019); Supreme Court decision in Rita Verma (SLP (C) No. 7481 of 2024, dated 20.09.2024) modifying Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (Writ-C No. 41540 of 2023, 2024:AHC:9963-DB) and Smt. Rita Verma (Writ-C No. 6450 of 2024, 2024:AHC:35201-DB); writ petition disposed of with direction to act expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's application dated October 7, 2025 for re-issuance of passport on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any subsequent office memorandum governing the field, and to act expeditiously in accordance with law. ¶27

Varish Ali vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. External Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities are required to consider the petitioner's application dated October 7, 2025 for re-issuance of passport on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 (or any subsequent office memorandum governing the field), in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rita Verma which modified the line of Division Bench rulings of this Court (Pawan Kumar Rajbhar; Smt. Rita Verma).

¶23

Court's answer

In light of the Supreme Court's findings in Rita Verma, which has finally dealt with the issue, the authorities are required to consider the petitioner's application dated October 7, 2025 for re-issuance of passport on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent office memorandum that may govern the field; the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rita Verma shall apply to the present case.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The authorities are directed to act expeditiously in accordance with law in the subject matter.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ., disposed of Writ-C No. 495 of 2026 (Varish Ali v. Union of India and 3 others) on January 30, 2026. The petitioner sought a mandamus to consider his passport Application No. 25-0067758361 dated 07-10-2025. The Court noted that the Division Bench ruling in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (Writ-C No. 41540 of 2023, 2024:AHC:9963-DB), whose ratio was reiterated in Smt. Rita Verma (Writ-C No. 6450 of 2024, 2024:AHC:35201-DB), stands modified by the Supreme Court in Rita Verma (SLP (C) No. 7481 of 2024, judgment and order dated 20.09.2024), where the Supreme Court directed consideration of the passport application on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 (Memo No. VI/401/1/5/2019) notwithstanding the High Court's order. Holding that the Supreme Court has finally dealt with the issue, the Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application dated October 7, 2025 for re-issuance of passport on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any subsequent office memorandum governing the field, and to act expeditiously in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 495 of 2026

Varish Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India, Thru. Secy. External Affairs Govt. New Delhi And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Subodh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 3

¶10

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & DSGI assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 &2.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶13

"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite parties to consider the Application No. 25-0067758361 dated 07-10-2025 as Annexure no.1 issued the passport in favour of the petitioner by the opposite parties, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice."

¶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 learned counsel 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

¶16

WRIC No. 495 of 2026

¶17

¶18

Appeal (C) No.7481 of 2024 vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2024.

¶19

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:-

¶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

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

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

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 dated October 7, 2025 of the petitioner for re-issuance of 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

¶24

WRIC No. 495 of 2026

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

January 30, 2026 cks/-

¶29

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Varish Ali v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. External Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varish Ali v. Union of India, Thru. Secy. External Affairs Govt. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anoop Kumar and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Cane Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Amar Jeet Singh and 18 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cane Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Adama India Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Gopal Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jeet Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Gelogy and Mining Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Shishir Pandey Security Agency Lko Thru. Its Authorized Representative Mr. Atul Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Lko and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Foreign Affair and 3 Others