Disposed¶17

Arpit Rastogi v. Union of India Thru. Secy. External Affairs Deptt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2026WRIC/723/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport impounding; Regional Passport Office; Tatkaal Scheme renewal; pending criminal case (filed 2016, petty nature); criminal proceedings stayed by High Court; show cause notice and reply; Magistrate order dated 13.01.2026 refusing travel permission; Article 226 writ; direction to release passport within three weeks; writ petition disposed. Precedent noted from counsel's submission: Rita Verma vs. Union of India and others, SLP(C) No. 7481 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the authorities concerned to release the petitioner's passport in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from date. ¶17

Arpit Rastogi vs Union of India Thru. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the authorities concerned to release the petitioner's passport in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from date.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's passport, impounded by respondent No.4 after the Regional Passport Office learnt of a pending criminal case against him (despite the High Court having stayed the entire criminal proceedings), should be released to him.

¶10

Court's answer

On perusal of the provisions on which the criminal case is based, this Court found the case to be of a petty nature and one filed in the year 2016.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter related to renewal of the passport and the High Court had already stayed the entire proceedings of the trial court after considering the material on record, the Court directed the authorities concerned to release the petitioner's passport in accordance with law within three weeks from date.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 723 of 2026, coram Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla, JJ., decided 11 February 2026. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impounding of his passport by respondent No.4 (Regional Passport Office) after it learnt, during his Tatkaal Scheme renewal application, that a criminal case was pending against him, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He had responded to a show cause notice by pointing out that the entire criminal proceedings had been stayed by the High Court, furnishing supporting documents; however, by order dated 13th January, 2026, the Magistrate declined permission to travel abroad as inappropriate in view of the stay. Finding the underlying 2016 criminal case to be of a petty nature, and noting the existing stay of the entire trial-court proceedings, the Court directed the authorities concerned to release the petitioner's passport in accordance with law within three weeks and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 723 of 2026

Arpit Rastogi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secy. External Affairs Deptt. New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Priyadarshi, Vishnu Kumar Srivastava 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 parties.

¶10

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impounding of the passport carried out by respondent No.4.

¶11

It is to be noted that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his passport by way of the Tatkaal Scheme and the Regional Passport Office subsequently came to know that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. In light of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied submitting that the entire criminal proceedings have been stayed by the High Court. Documents in support of the same was also provided to the Passport Office.

¶12

Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Regional Passport Office has submitted that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma vs. Union of India and others ; Petition(s) Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7481 of 2024 should apply and permission should be taken from the Magistrate concerned. However, by an order dated 13th January, 2026, the Magistrate concerned has passed an order stating that since the entire proceedings have been stayed by the High Court, it would not be appropriate for the Magistrate to grant permission to travel abroad.

¶13

WRIC No. 723 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Upon perusal of the various provisions under which the criminal case is based, we are of the view that the case is of a petty nature and is a case filed in the year 2016.

¶16

In light of the same, we are of the view that since the matter relates to renewal of the passport and the High Court has already stayed the entire proceedings of the trial court after considering the material on record, we direct the authorities concerned to release the passport of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from date.

¶17

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

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

¶19

February 11, 2026 Ashutosh

¶20

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

Arpit Rastogi v. Union of India Thru. Secy. External Affairs Deptt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Rastogi v. Union of India Thru. Secy. External Affairs Deptt. 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

Savitri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Om Prakash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. Thru. Authorised Officer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

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

Prema Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

M/S Kushagra Enterprises Thru. Signatory Anil Kumar Jain vs State Election Commission U.P. Thru. Commissioner and Another