Kuljeet Singh v. Yashpal Regional Passport Officer And ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 Kuljeet Singh ......Petitioner Vs.

Sh. Yashpal and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present :

Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Indresh Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1.

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-34872-2024.

2.

This Court had issued the following directions in CWP-348722024, vide its order dated 20.12.2024:- "6.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Regional Passport Officer to process petitioner's application within a period of six weeks from the date revised police verification report is received from the Punjab Police."

-23.

In compliance of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-34872-2024, reply dated 12.09.2025, along with Annexures R-1/1 to R-1/6, has been filed by Mr. Yash Pal, Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar on behalf of respondent No.1 before the Registry. The same is taken on record. The relevant portion of the said reply is reproduced as under:- "4.

That the sequence of events as narrated above would clearly demonstrate and establish that the orders dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High Court have been fully implemented by the answering respondent in letter and spirit. It is a settled law that the cognizance once taken by the trial court in a criminal case, only the trial court is competent to give a specific permission to the petitioner to depart from India (period to be specified by the trial court) along with the direction to issue passport for the relevant period which permission is missing in the present case and has not been produced till date. The same also finds mention in the Gazette Notification No. GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993. Relevant extract attached as (Annexure R1/6). Hence, the answering respondent is unable to grant passport facilities to the petitioner in the absence of the specific permission from the Trial Court as elaborated in the earlier submissions."

-34.

In view of the above, since order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-34872-2024, has already been complied with, therefore, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged. 5.

Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedy as is available to him in accordance with law. 6.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 15.10.2025 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No