Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:28178 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 814 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Mehrotra Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Rishi Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-06, Meerut in Criminal Case No.4100377 of 2015, wherein although permission has been extended in favour of petitioner for re-issuing the passport in his favour, but at the same time no specific period has been mentioned regarding period of validity of passport. Being aggrieved with the same, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.1195 of 2024 (Anil Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.) and the same was also dismissed in limine vide order dated 20.11.2024, which impugned the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a very innocuous prayer that due to non-availability of specific period mentioned in the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by learned concerned court, the same would have been treated by Regional Passport Officer at the time of re-issuing passport in favour of petitioner only for one year which is apparent from the regulation which is available in the Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 2019 issued by Government of India. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petitioner and submitted that there is criminal history of six cases credited in favour of petitioner particularly all the matters pertains to sections 406, 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 506 I.P.C., perhaps the period is deliberately not mentioned by learned concerned court for ensuring presence of the petitioner before learned concerned court on periodical basis. 5. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 2019, it is crystal clear that in any case if the specific period has not been mentioned by learned concerned court while extending permission for re-issuing passport in favour of petitioner, the same would be treated as only for one year. Although with regard to terms and conditions available in the Office Memorandum, which is for extension of permission for renewal of the passport and for controverting the same, no party is available in the petition for seeking proper response; by bare perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 10th October, 2019, the passport is not the only document on which the traveling shall be ensured in favour of passport holder, but it is the pre-requisite mandatory qualification for traveling abroad only on the basis of extension of viza by the concerned country. Renewal of the passport may be extended in a general manner as extended in the normal conditions, but the approval of viza be conducted in strict terms and conditions, whereas for some countries viza is not required and as such permission from the learned court concerned is required for extension of passport in favour of person who is involved in some criminal proceedings. 6. The abovementioned grounds cannot be ascertain in absence of the necessary party being the Government of India to whom the direction may be issued; in the instant matter learned court concerned is hereby directed to consider the prayer in respect of Office Memorandum, which is a guiding conduction of re-issuing the passport in favour of petitioner and in absence of the same, the same shall be treated for one year, whereas the learned counsel for petitioner trying to apprise the Court that in pursuance to the business affairs being managed by the petitioner himself, he has to frequently visit abroad which is apparent from the copy of passport having stamps of different countries over the leaf of same. 7. 7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, both the orders dated 11.06.2024 and 20.11.2024 passed by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-06, Meerut and learned Session Judge, Meerut respectively are hereby set-aside; learned court concerned is hereby directed to re-consider the application of petitioner as fresh by way of disclosing the specific period as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. However, it is made clear that at this juncture, this Court is not binding the learned court concerned for exceeding the limit of stipulated period and the same shall be adjudicated on the basis of materials and legal conscious of the court concerned. 9. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 27.2.2025/Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad