Smt.Ujma v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 11914 of 2025

Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶2This writ petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "(i) ISSUE a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to grant the Passport for Haj pilgrim in favour of the Petitioner."

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be disposed of in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar versus Union of India and 2 others; Writ-C No.41540 of 2023 : Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:9963-DB.

¶4The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is controverted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2. His submission is that the judgment of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra) has been modified by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma vs. Union of India and others; Petition(s) Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7481 of 2024 vide Versus

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kr. Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Smt.Ujma .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of External Affairs Govt. Of India New Delhi And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) judgment and order dated 20.09.2024.

¶5It may be noted that in Smt. Rita Verma vs. Union of India and others; Writ-C No.6450 of 2024; Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:35201-DB, the Division Bench of this Court had reiterated the ratio of Pawan Kumar Rajbhar (supra). However, after examining the entire position with regard to the Memorandum No.VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma (supra) has directed as follows:- "4. In spite of the clear wordings in the Memo, the High Court by the order impugned herein came to a conclusion that the office Memorandum is contrary to the statutory position and proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶5We have heard Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, appearing for the appellant as also Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the approach adopted by the High Court that the Office Memorandum is contrary to the statutory positions and is not supported by law and it is also not the stand of the Union of India. Learned Additional Solicitor General expressed no difficulty in processing the application of the appellant on the basis of the Office Memorandum.

¶6In this view of the matter, it is sufficient for us to direct the authorities to consider the application for renewal of the passport on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent Office Memorandums that may govern the field notwithstanding the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.6450/2024 dated 28.02.2024, upon making of an appropriate application, the same shall be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible."

¶6In light of the above finding(s) of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the authorities are required to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of fresh passport on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 or any other subsequent office memorandum that may govern the field as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally dealt with this issue in Rita Verma (supra). The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Verma (supra) shall apply in the present case, therefore, we direct the authorities to act WRIC No. 11914 of 2025 expeditiously in accordance with law in the subject matter.

¶7With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. December 17, 2025 cks/- WRIC No. 11914 of 2025 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench