IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-18722-2026 Date of Decision : July 22, 2026 NARINDER PAL SINGH KOHLI -PETITIONER V/S UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab for the respondent No.5. *** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant writ petition is directed against the orders dated 03.07.2025 and 11.09.2025, passed by the Regional Passport Officer and the Appellate Authority, respectively, whereby the petitioner’s application seeking re-issuance/renewal of passport was rejected in terms of the provisions of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and the appeal preferred against the said order of refusal also came to be dismissed. 2. The bedrock for passing of the impugned orders was constituted by conviction of the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”). The learned Judge, Special Court, S.A.S. Nagar, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 15.02.2025, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with a fine of ₹20,000/- for the DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18722-2026 2 offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of ₹30,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the order dated 08.04.2025 passed in CRM-10256-2025 in CRA-S-817-2025, submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already suspended the sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is further contended that during the pendency of the trial, the learned trial Court had directed release of the petitioner’s passport vide order dated 13.12.2018. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to re-issuance/renewal of his passport. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no merit in his submissions. The reason for drawing this conclusion stems from the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act and the sentences imposed upon him, as noticed hereinabove. Although the sentence awarded to the petitioner has been suspended, the appeal against his conviction is still pending adjudication. Therefore, the statutory embargo contained in Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act squarely operates against the petitioner’s request for re-issuance/renewal of his passport. Consequently, the authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for re-issuance/renewal of his passport. 5. In summa, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 22, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment