CWP-16562 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kewal Singh Dhillon Union of India and CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of orders dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P 24.11.2025 application for re 2. issuance/renewal learned Trial renewal of passport 3. decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of permission of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned is required only existing one travel abroad. 16562-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kewal Singh Dhillon Versus Union of India and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Dhankar, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of orders dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.2, vide which, his application for re-issuance of passport has been rejected. The application preferred by the petitioner for issuance/renewal of his passport was declined on the ground that the learned Trial Court, where he is facing trial, has granted permission for renewal of passport only, but not for travelling abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2887, permission of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned is required only for the purpose of getting a new passport or renewal of one, and the applicant is not required to have travel abroad. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16562-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Dhankar, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of orders 4) passed by respondent No.3, and 6), passed by respondent No.2, vide which, his issuance of passport has been rejected. The application preferred by the petitioner for re- of his passport was declined on the ground that the Court, where he is facing trial, has granted permission for not for travelling abroad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. India and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 2887, contends that permission of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned is for the purpose of getting a new passport or renewal of the , and the applicant is not required to have permission to .2026 instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of orders and 6), passed by respondent No.2, vide which, his - of his passport was declined on the ground that the Court, where he is facing trial, has granted permission for upon a . that permission of the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned is the permission to AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-16562 4. submits that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases. Therefore, the matter at hand is an 5. vehemently oppos has already cancellation report learned Trial impediment in acceding to the request of the petitioner. 6. report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, on behalf of respondent No.4 which is taken on record. The said report also reveals the details and exact status of the FIRs 7. FIR No. 126 leave for renewal of the passport. cannot be sustained, and thus, the same are 8. direction to the Regional Passport Office concerned to re 16562-2026 (O&M) -2- At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases. Therefore, the matter at hand is an evident However, learned counsel for vehemently opposing the abovesaid submission already been acquitted in two cases, cancellation report filed by the police has learned Trial Court concerned. In such circumstances, there is no legal impediment in acceding to the request of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), ice Commissionerate, Ludhiana, on behalf of respondent No.4 which is taken on record. The said report also reveals the details and exact status of the FIRs:- (i) FIR No.126 dated 06.07.2022, under Sections 447 and 511 of IPC registered at Police Sta (Pending trial) (ii) FIR No.227 dated 31.12.2016 under Sections of 447, 427, 379, 506, 201, 511 IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. (Acquitted) (iii) FIR No.136 dated 28.06.2017 under Sections 379, 447, 507, 34 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana (Acquitted) (iv) FIR No. 253 dated 20.12.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana (Cancellation report accepted). Therefore, it is a conceded position that FIR No. 126, is pending trial, wherein, the petitioner has already obtained for renewal of the passport. Accordingly cannot be sustained, and thus, the same are As a sequel, the instant writ petition is direction to the Regional Passport Office concerned to re At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases. evident case of concealment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, while the abovesaid submission, asserts that the petitioner whereas, in the remaining case, has also been accepted by the . In such circumstances, there is no legal impediment in acceding to the request of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), ice Commissionerate, Ludhiana, on behalf of respondent No.4 to 6, which is taken on record. The said report also reveals the details and FIR No.126 dated 06.07.2022, under Sections 447 and 511 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana. FIR No.227 dated 31.12.2016 under Sections of 447, 427, 379, 506, 201, 511 IPC, 1860 registered at Police (Acquitted) FIR No.136 dated 28.06.2017 under Sections 379, IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station FIR No. 253 dated 20.12.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana (Cancellation report accepted).” conceded position that only one FIR, i.e. is pending trial, wherein, the petitioner has already obtained Accordingly, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and thus, the same are set aside. , the instant writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Regional Passport Office concerned to re-visit the matter, At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases. , while asserts that the petitioner the remaining case, accepted by the . In such circumstances, there is no legal On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed a status report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), to 6, which is taken on record. The said report also reveals the details and FIR No.126 dated 06.07.2022, under Sections 447 . FIR No.227 dated 31.12.2016 under Sections of 447, 427, 379, 506, 201, 511 IPC, 1860 registered at Police FIR No.136 dated 28.06.2017 under Sections 379, IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station FIR No. 253 dated 20.12.2006 under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station only one FIR, i.e. is pending trial, wherein, the petitioner has already obtained , the impugned orders with a visit the matter, AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-16562 in the light of within 8 weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of t without saying that the petitioner shall be afforded due opportunity of hearing, before passing any order, to enable him to substantiate his claim. 15.07.202 Ak Sharma 16562-2026 (O&M) -3- in the light of Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra within 8 weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of t without saying that the petitioner shall be afforded due opportunity of hearing, before passing any order, to enable him to substantiate his claim. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra), and pass a fresh order, within 8 weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be afforded due opportunity of hearing, before passing any order, to enable him to substantiate his claim. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No , and pass a fresh order, his order. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be afforded due opportunity of AMIT KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document