Arvind Chauhan v. Union Of India And 3 Others

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid criminal proceedings have already concluded on the basis of confession and penalty of Rs. 3000/- imposed has to be divided amongst three accused and therefore, Rs. 1000/- penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, which has been paid. It is therefore submitted that the claim of the petitioner would not be covered within the embargo placed under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967 and the authorities cannot deny consideration of petitioner claim. Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the claim of the petitioner has not been rejected so far. He also states that final order of the Court has not been made available to the authorities. In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioner to approach the concerned passport office along with certified copy of this order along with the order passed by the concerned Court concluding the criminal proceedings on deposit of penalty. The passport authorities shall accord consideration to the petitioner's claim for issuance of passport keeping in view the provisions of Section 6(2) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 by passing appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks, thereafter. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Noman