HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 11721 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the concerned authority i.e. Senior Superintendent R.P.O. Ghaziabad has rejected the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport. 3. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as from perusal of the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Meerut in Criminal Case No.13310 of 2021, it is evident that the Court has permitted the renewal of passport of the petitioner subject to the conditions enumerated in the order. It is submitted that the impugned order does not consider the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Meerut in Criminal Case No.13310 of 2021 in correct perspective, and thus, the finding of the competent authority that in the instant case, provisions of Section 6 (2) (F) of the Passport Act, 1967 is attracted. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court dated 30.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No.22882 of 2025 and also the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India and 2 Others, 2024 0 Supreme (All) 1870. 4. Per contra, Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Prabhakar Tripathi Rizwan Khan .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that elaborate reason has been recorded by the competent authority while rejecting the application of the petitioner to renew the passport. It is contended that under the Office Memorandum No.VI/441/01/04/2024 dated 18.02.2025, the petitioner has to seek a permission from the concerned Court for leaving the country to abroad, but in the instant case, permission has not been granted by the Criminal Court. 5. Be that as it may, the Criminal Court by order dated 12.02.2025 has granted permission to renew the passport of the petitioner subject to the conditions enumerated in the said order. The relevant extract of the order dated 12.02.2025 is reproduced herein-below:- "अिभयुक्त िरजवान पुत्र अब्दुल हकीम की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांक 12.02.2025 स्वीकार िकया जाता है। अिभयुक्त को िविधनुसार पासपोटर् नवीनीकरण के िलये िनम्न शतोर्ं पर अनुमित प्रदान की जाती है:- 1. अिभयुक्त िनयत ितिथ पर व्यिक्तगत रूप से न्यायालय में उपिस्थत रहेंगे तथा िवचारण में सहयोग करेंगे। 2. न्यायालय की अनुमित के िबना देश छोड़कर बाहर िवदेश यात्रा नहीं जायेंगे। 3. वह साक्ष्य के साथ कोई छेड़छाड़ नहीं करेंगे। 4. अगर भिवष्य में न्यायालय द्वारा उन्हें िवदेश यात्रा की अनुमित दी जाती है, तो वे जिरये अिधवक्ता न्यायालय में उपिस्थत रहेंगे तथा िकसी भी तरह से पत्रावली की कायर्वाही को प्रभािवत नहीं होने देंगे। 5. अगर अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध इस मुकदमे के अलावा कोई अन्य मुकदमा पंजीकृ त / िवचाराधीन है, तो अिभयुक्त उक्त मुकदमे के सबंध में संबंिधत न्यायालय से पासपोटर् बनवाने हेतु अनुमित प्राप्त करेंगे तथा उक्त मुकदमे में अनुमित प्राप्त होने के पश्चात् यह आदेश प्रभावी होगा। 6. सबंिधत क्षेत्रीय पासपोटर् अिधकारी अिभयुक्त के प्राथर्ना पत्र पर स्विववेकानुसार िविध अनुरूप आदेश पािरत करेंगे तथा इस सबंध में न्यायालय द्वारा कोई िनदेर्श नहीं िदया जा रहा है। उपरोक्त शतोर्ं के बाबत प्राथीर् / िभयुक्ता अण्डरटेिकग प्रस्तुत करे।" 6. The reading of the aforesaid order discloses that Criminal Court has granted permission for renewal of the passport of the petitioner subject to the conditions enumerated in the said order, and the competent authority has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for seeking permission/NOC from the Court concerned for issuance of passport, instead it is permission to depart from India, in such WRIC No. 11721 of 2025 2 view of the fact, we are of the opinion that the said observation is in the teeth of the judgement of this Court in Writ-C No.22882 of 2025 and also the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar Vs. Union of India and 2 Others 2024 0 Supreme (All) 1870. 7. In such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and is accordingly, set aside with liberty to the respondent no.2 to consider the renewal application of passport of the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the guidelines laid down in the case of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra). 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. September 24, 2025 NS WRIC No. 11721 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad