HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11811 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and 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 the respondents no.4 and 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following main relief(s): "A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 4 to re- issue/Renew the petitioner's passport in Passport No- N5502764 in reference to Application reference No.25- 20555840653, dated 24.11.2025 which is still pending before the Opposite Party No 4. B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No-4 to re- issue/renew passport in favour of the petitioner as soon as possible within stipulated period. C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 3 not to make impediment for verification for the passport of petitioner on account of the alleged first information report being registered as Case Crime No. 0059/2016, U/S- 3/8 and 11(1) of UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 P.S- Tikait Nagar, District-Barabnki on /17/03/2016 and thereafter charge sheet has been submitted by the police on 02.05.2016 and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court on 08.07.2016 in Case Crime No.0059 of 2016, U/S- 3 and 8 of UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and U/S 11(1) of THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960. D. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned criminal/Trial Court to renewal/Re-Issue the passport of the petitioner in pursuance of notification dated 25.08.1993 and Office Memorandum dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Mayank Srivastav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., A.S.G.I. Tausif @ Tauseef Ahmad @ Guddu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home), Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of the external Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi." 3. 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 and Union of India and 2 others reported in 2024: AHC: 9963-DB. 4. 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. 5. 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:- "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. 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. 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." 6. 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 issuance of fresh 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 WRIC No. 11811 of 2025 2 in Rita Verma (Supra) shall apply in the present case, therefore, we direct the authorities to act expeditiously in accordance with law in the subject matter. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. December 10, 2025 Anand/- WRIC No. 11811 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench