Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs Union of India Thru.Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt of India New Delhi and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 574 of 2026

Sandeep Kumar Mishra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru.Chief Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs Govt Of India New Delhi And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nikhil Sonkar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 3

¶8

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

¶9

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 .

¶10

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

¶11

"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 09.10.2025, and the same has been expired on 27.04.2019, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

WRIC No. 574 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

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:-

¶17

"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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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."

¶20

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

¶21

WRIC No. 574 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

January 28, 2026

¶27

Ashutosh

¶28

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

Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. Union of India Thru.Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Mishra v. Union of India Thru.Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt of India 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Lucknow Plastics Thru. Proprietor Maksood Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

Mohammad Aftab vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Sangeeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka Yadav vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Natural Gas and Petrolum Deptt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Nirmal Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Dinesh Kumar Ojha vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Dlw Varanasi Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others