Dharmendra Kanaujiya vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India as well as Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the Opposite Parties to issue the passport to the petitioner considering his application form pending since 22.11.2025 before the opposite party no.2"

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

WRIC No. 602 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It may be noted that in Rita Verma (supra), the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court had reiterated the ratio of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra). However, the Supreme Court, after examining the entire position with regard to the Memorandum No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019, 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

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

WRIC No. 602 of 2026

3

subject matter.

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

¶26

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

¶27

February 3, 2026

¶28

Satish

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Kanaujiya v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kanaujiya v. U.O.I. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devimaashakti Constructions and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Duly Auth. Ayush Sinha vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry. of Railways New Delhi and 4 Others

Vimlesh Kumar Tripathi vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Minstry of Petroleum New Delhi and 4 Others

Ajay Pal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt.Ranjana Lodhi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Ashwini Rice Mill.Thru. Proprietor Dinesh Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and Another

Musheer vs U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Its Chairman and Another