HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 10660 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Verma, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Dwivedi, counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the communication letter dated 24.03.2025 issued by respondent no. 2 by which, the petitioner's passport has impounded. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter impugned has been issued without application of mind and without considering the facts on record, therefore, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. In support of his argument, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.07.2024, passed in Writ C No. 20480 of 2024 (Mohammad Umar vs. Union of India and Ors.). 4. Per contra, Sri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that specific reason has been assigned in the communication letter dated 24.03.2025 for doing so, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity. 5. Be that as it may, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 14 of judgment and order dated 25.07.2024, passed in Writ C No. 20480 of 2024 (Mohammad Umar vs. Union of India and Ors.) has laid down as under :- "14. The passport officer in the present matter has taken decision to impound petitioner's passport under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 only on the ground that proceedings related to an offence are pending against the petitioner before criminal court but he has not considered the facts of the criminal case and has also not recorded reasons to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner may misuse his Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Sanjay Dwivedi Kanhaiya Lal .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India, And Another .....Respondent(s) passport for avoiding his presence before the criminal court and also for delaying the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and therefore it is necessary to impound his passport under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967. More so we find that Section 10 (5) of the Passports Act, 1967 mandates the passport authority to give brief reasons for passing the order for impounding of the passport but in the present case impugned communication dated 30.05.2023 does not disclose that the passport authority has made any consideration of the facts of the case and has recorded reasons. Ergo, the impugned decision for impounding petitioner's passport contained in the impugned order dated 30.05.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." 6. In view of findings recorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Umar (supra), we find that the impugned communication letter dated 24.03.2025 can be sustained only for the reason that while recording the finding criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The authority concerned has not considered the facts and the nature of office levelled against the petitioner in that criminal case. 7. In such view of the matter, we find that case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Umar (supra), therefore, the impugned communication letter cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons as above, the communication letter dated 24.03.2025 is set aside with liberty to respondent no. 2 to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. September 24, 2025 sailesh WRIC No. 10660 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad