The petitioner sought a writ to quash an office letter and direct passport renewal without excessive conditions. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment covering similar facts, the Court disposed of the petition making prior directives applicable.
Petition dismissed; directives in Vikramjeet Singh v. State of H.P. applied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.15959 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.9.2026
_____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Verma ……...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Narender Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. __________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following
main reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned office letter dated 24.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 3;
b) Direct the Respondents to renew the Petitioner’s passport forthwith without insisting on unnecessary conditions which are not warranted in law."
2
2. Before reply, if any, could be sought from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner made available copy of judgment dated 25.6.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9259 of 2025, titled Vikramjeet Singh v. State of H.P. and others , to state that case of the petitioner is fully covered by aforesaid judgment.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having gone through the afore judgment, fairly admits that same is applicable to the case of the petitioner.
4. Since parties are ad idem that mandate contained in the judgment passed in Vikramjeet Singh (supra) is applicable to the facts of present petition, this Court sees no reason to keep the petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of, making directions passed in Vikramjeet Singh (supra) mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. All pending applications stand disposed of.
September 15, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's case is covered by the judgment in Vikramjeet Singh v. State of H.P. and others requiring disposal of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vikramjeet Singh v. State of H.P. and othersFollowed¶2
Vikramjeet Singh v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 9259 of 2025
Sandeep Verma
Union of India
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
