Ajmer Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2026CWP/34905/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Passport; fresh passport; writ of mandamus; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; FIR No. 259 dated 09.12.1989; acquittal judgment dated 09.10.1991; status of various FIRs; passport authority to consider clarification and pass appropriate order within four weeks; summons by written communication; CWP-34905-2025 (O&M); High Court of Punjab & Haryana; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on the stand of respondents No.1 and 2-Union of India that the passport authority will consider the clarification regarding the status of the various FIRs and pass an appropriate order within four weeks; passport authority may call the petitioner by written communication if further information or his presence is required; pending applications closed. No mandamus issued. ¶¶22

Ajmer Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner.

¶¶16

Court's answer

The responses/clarification submitted regarding the status of the various FIRs against the petitioner shall be considered by the passport authority, which shall pass an appropriate order (as circumstances may warrant) within a period of four weeks.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the stand taken by counsel for respondents No.1 and 2-Union of India, no further order was required to be passed and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

It is made clear that if any more information is required from the petitioner, or his presence is required, the passport authority may call him by way of written communication.ratio¶¶23
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for issuance of a fresh passport to the petitioner. The Court was informed that in FIR No. 259 dated 09.12.1989 the petitioner already stands acquitted vide judgment dated 09.10.1991, and counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 (Union of India) submitted that the requisite clarification regarding the status of the various FIRs against the petitioner has already been filed in Court. Holding that, in view of that stand, no further order was required, the Court disposed of the writ petition, recording that the passport authority shall consider the said responses and pass an appropriate order (as circumstances may warrant) within four weeks, and clarifying that the passport authority may call the petitioner by way of written communication if further information or his presence is required. All pending application(s), if any, stood closed.

¶1

CWP-34905-2025 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

218 CWP-34905-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:22.05.2026

Ajmer Singh

..…Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

¶8

..…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

¶10

Present: Mr. Rahul Tomar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Harpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab

¶13

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Addl Standing Counsel with Mr. Karanvir Singh, Junior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.5-UT Chandigarh.

¶14

¶15

HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)

¶16

Prayer in the present civil writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India , inter alia , is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner.

¶17

Today, in pursuance to the order dated 12.05.2026, the learned State counsel informs the Court that in case FIR No. 259 dated 09.12.1989, the petitioner already stands acquitted vide judgment dated 09.10.1991 and he handed over a copy thereof in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Copy thereof has also been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner as well.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶19

DINESH 2026.05.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-34905-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶21

respondents No.1 and 2-Union of India submits that since the requisite clarification regarding the status of the various FIRs against the petitioner has already been submitted in this Court, accordingly, the said responses would be considered by the passport authority and an appropriate order shall be passed (as the circumstances may warrant) within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

Keeping in view the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2-Union of India, no further order is required to be passed in the present writ petition and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

4.1. It is made clear that in case any more information is required from the petitioner or his presence is required, then the passport authority may call him by way of written communication.

¶24

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

¶25

22.05.2026		(HARSH BUNGER)
dinesh		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶26

DINESH 2026.05.27 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ajmer Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sumanpreet Singh Vs Union of Indi a and Others

Resham Pal Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dunish Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Ujjwal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Arshdeep Singh Vs Union of India and Others