IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2296 of 2026 Decided on: 20th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daleep Singh Kaith …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 4. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to process and issue him passport in accordance with law. 2. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents on 02.03.2026, learned Deputy Advocate General during hearing of the case on 18.05.2026, placed on record office instructions dated 24.03.2026. In terms of 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 the said office instructions, FIR No.200/2018, dated 24.12.2018, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Rampur, District Shimla under Sections 341, 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code is pending trial before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, District Shimla. The said case is stated to be scheduled for 06.07.2026 for recording evidence. 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed their short affidavit-cum-reply, pleading that the petitioner had applied for issuance of passport under fresh category on 04.02.2026; Amongst other documents, petitioner had disclosed pendency of criminal case against him in FIR No.200/2018. In view of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 gets attracted, which reads as under:- “6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (a) to (d) xxx xxx xxx (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:- (a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.” 3 Respondents No.2 and 3 have also referred to a notification dated 25.08.1993 in G.S.R. 570(E) to the following extent:- “……….. the central government has exempted citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Passports act 1967, subject to the following conditions namely:- (a) The Passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued (i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or (ii) If no period either for issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be for a period of one year; (iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period of validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or (iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order……...” Further stand of respondents No.2 & 3 is that the petitioner had not submitted permission/NOC for reissuance of passport from the concerned Hon’ble Court and for this reason, his passport application has been kept on hold pending submission of permission. That the respondents have not denied passport service to the 4 petitioner, but have merely sought permission for reissuance of passport from the concerned Hon’ble Court in accordance with the Ministry of External Affairs notification dated 25.08.1993 in G.S.R. 570(E). Respondents No.2 and 3 have further undertaken to issue passport to the petitioner as per permission/NOC for reissuance of passport from the Hon’ble Court concerned in accordance with law. 4. In view of the stand taken by respondents No.2 and 3/competent authority, it is for the petitioner to comply with the terms & conditions by submitting requisite permission/NOC from the concerned Court to the Passport Issuing Authority. In case of petitioner complying with the requisites, his application shall be processed expeditiously in accordance with law. With these observations, the present writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 20, 2026 Judge Mukesh