Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7915 (UTT)

MS NEHA CHADHA v. UNION OF INDIA

WPMS/1958/2026 · 2026-07-08

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010110342026 2026:UHC:5565 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1958/2026 Ms Neha Chadha --Petitioner Versus Union Of India and others --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for Union of India/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: “a. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no 2, 3 and 4 to renew and reissue of the passport of the petitioner's children forthwith. b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondent no.3 Grant the Petitioner sole authority to renew Master Arnav Mehra's passport (No. V7574281, expiring July 2026) without requiring the Respondent's no.5 consent, and direct the Passport Seva Kendra to process the same on the Petitioner's sole application. c. Declare the Petitioner, Neha Chadha Vimal Kumar Chadha (UAE Golden Card Holder, Emirates ID No. 784-1985-9032537-3), as the sole legal guardian and sponsor of the minor children for all UAE immigration, Golden Visa, and residency purposes.” 3. Time for instruction was given to learned counsel appearing for Regional Passport Officer. On instruction, he submits that petitioner never applied for renewal of passport UKHC010110342026 2026:UHC:5565 before Regional Passport Officer, Dehradun. He, however, submits that during pendency of writ petition, petitioner applied for renewal of passport before Consulate General of India at Dubai on 03.07.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that passport of two minor sons of petitioner has to be renewed; however, there are certain documents which are in the custody of petitioner’s husband (respondent No. 5 herein) and he is not handing over those documents to petitioner which is creating problem for petitioner. 5. This Court cannot issue any direction to renew the passport within a time line; however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach respondent No. 1, by making representation. If she makes representation within 10 days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, as early as possible. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2026 Mahinder/ UKHC010110342026 2026:UHC:5565