WP(C)/32353/2024 of RAHUL SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA on 23 July 2026

ORDER

23.07.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the propriety of closure of application for issue of passport vide letter dated 11.10.2021 communicated by the Regional Passport Office, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-3.

2. Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 31.12.2020, an application was filed for issue of passport in favour of the petitioner which was initially held up for supply of copy of the judgment. However, instead of keeping the application in abeyance till decision is rendered in the pending criminal cases against the petitioner, the authority concerned at Regional Passport Office, Bhubaneswar directed as follows: “Dear Applicant, Please refer to the Passport application with File Number BH1073182780520 submitted at the Passport Seva Kendra

(PSK) Bhubaneswar in respect of Shri/Smt/Kumari RAHUL SHARMA. Please note that you have not yet submitted the required supporting document (s) as asked during your visit to the PSK Bhubaneswar on 31-Dec-2020 which was more than 283 days ago. You are requested to schedule an appointment before 10-Nov- 2021 and report in person at PSK Bhubaneswar along with the desired document(s) failing which it will be presumed that you are not able to furnish the required supporting document(s). This will result into permanent closure of your application file and the fee submitted shall be forfeited.”

3. It is submitted by Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. Sulochana Patra, learned CGC that since a criminal case was pending against the petitioner at the relevant point of time as reported by the police, the refusal to grant passport was justified in terms of GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, which reads thus: “GSR 570(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E) dated the 14th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them 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 said Act, 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 the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued 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 validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year;

(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.

(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;

(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad; (d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.”

4. It is submitted that though the application was filed in the year, 2020 and required documents were not filed as communicated in letter No.11.10.2021, the application justifiably was not considered. The writ petition being filed in the year 2022, it is further submitted that, it would difficult to revive the application which was closed since long.

5. At this stage, Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned Advocate furnished a copy of the judgment dated 27.02.2026 passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Sharma Vs. State of Odisha and others, CRLMC No.4839 of 2024, whereby this Court quashed and set aside not only the FIR and the criminal proceeding in respect of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.41 of 2016 corresponding to C.T. Case No.403 of 2016 which was pending in the files of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, but also the consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom. Hence, he contended that in view of the criminal proceeding being quashed and set aside by this Court, at this point of time, there is no criminal proceeding said to be pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the impediment for issue of passport being removed, the authority concerned may not object for issue of passport in favour of the petitioner.

6. Heard Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned DSGI along with Ms. Sulochana Patro, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India-opposite party No.1 so also Mr. Anshuman Sethy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for opposite party No.2-State.

7. The basis for which the application for grant of passport was refused earlier has been removed. The criminal proceeding having been quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the afore-cited case. Therefore, there should not be impediment for grant of passport in favour of the petitioner, if he files an application before the competent authority. In the event of making such application, the said authority considering the judgment rendered by this Court as above with respect to criminal case, shall issue passport in favour of the petitioner, unless there is no other legal impediment. Needless to say that the authority concerned shall not be swayed away by the reason cited in the earlier decision which is impugned herein.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

Bichi

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Jul-2026 19:28:38 Signature Not Verified