Avnesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union Of India And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 NO. 13425 OF 2025
Avnesh Kumar Agarwal …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
Union of India & 3 Ors …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Pavan Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I, G.A., Sanjay Dwivedi
In Chamber
AFR
Reserved on: 25.02.2026
Delivered on: 03.06.2026
HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
A. BRIEF HISTORY OF EARLIER PROCEEDINGS:
1. Heard Shri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri
Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondents, and
perused the material available on record.
2. The instant petition has been preferred assailing the impugned
order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly in Special
Trial No.18 of 2025, whereby the petitioner’s application- seeking a No
Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NOC’) for renewal
of passport, was rejected.
3. Succinctly, the petitioner’s case is that two First Information
Reports (‘FIRs’) were registered against the petitioner; (i) FIR No.1634
of 2007, on 13.09.2007, under Sections 406, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471,

2
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
120-B and 218 of IPC, at Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnor; and
(ii) FIR No.318 of 2007, under Sections 420, 406, 424, 467, 468, 471,
477, 218 and 120-B IPC, read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station- Mandawali, District Bijnor. In
both the FIRs, senior officers of the Commercial Tax Department,
District Bijnor have been arrayed as accused, along with owners of a
transport company and truck drivers, with the allegations of destruction
of official records by setting the government office on fire by certain
unknown miscreants, besides the allegation of corruption and forgery.
4. In brief, the facts narrated in FIR No.1634 of 2007 are that a Sub-
Inspector posted at the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Uttar
Pradesh Police at Lucknow made a complaint arraying 25 persons as
accused. Accused Nos.1 to 10 were the officers of the Trade Tax
Department, whereas the remaining accused included drivers of trucks,
traders and the owner of a transport company situated at Calcutta,
Durgapur, Hazaribagh, Rishikesh and Muzaffarnagar. The allegations are
that the officers of the Trade Tax Department, in collusion with
businessmen, misused their official positions by giving undue benefits to
traders through fabrication and creation of forged and fraudulent
consignments, thereby causing heavy loss to the State treasury.
Substantially similar allegations were also leveled against government
officers and businessmen in FIR No.318 of 2007 registered at Police
Station- Mandawali, District Bijnor.
5. It was further submitted that, in respect of FIR No.318 of 2007,
the investigation had remained pending for nearly two decades, and with
regard to FIR No.1634 of 2007, the charge-sheet was submitted only in
the year 2024, and no effective orders have been passed therein. In view
of the inordinate delay of 18 years in filing the charge-sheet and the fact
that the petitioner was already on bail, the proceedings arising out of the
FIR No.1634 of 2007 has been stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 21.11.2025. Relying upon the said order, learned
counsel submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench after taking note of the

3
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
submission that; (i) the allegations in FIR No.1634 of 2007 are false and
frivolous, and were leveled with an ulterior motive to harass the
petitioner, (ii) the main allegations are against government officials, who
had allowed loaded trucks to pass through the Sales Tax Post without
depositing the requisite receipt, (iii) the petitioner is a businessman, (iv)
the charge-sheet was filed after 18 years of the registration of the FIR,
(v) there was no pre-summoning evidence on record regarding
commission of any offence by the petitioner, stayed the proceedings
against the petitioner. Accordingly, it was urged that the petitioner is
entitled to issuance of the NOC, and that the rejection of his application
was wholly erroneous.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for State
invited the attention of the Court to the gravity of the allegations against
the petitioner, submitting that the accusations are of a serious nature,
including the allegation that the accused persons set the government
office on fire with the intent to destroy official records.
7. During hearing of the case, this Court also noted that the Division
1
Bench of this Court in Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. , had
directed the State Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee
to formulate guidelines for monitoring the investigation of the FIRs
registered by the government departments in cases involving corruption
and cheating, and had further directed that the investigations be
completed expeditiously in a phased manner, besides issuing other
directions.
8. Accordingly, the learned A.G.A. was directed to obtain specific
instructions from the Office of the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, regarding the status of compliance with the said directions, and
to place the complete record along with all relevant
documents/guidelines, if any, before this Court on the next date of
hearing. Learned counsel for the Union of India was also granted liberty
1 (2023) SCC OnLine All 2501

4
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
to obtain necessary instructions with respect to the reliefs sought in the
present petition and to apprise the Court accordingly.
9. Time was sought and granted on two occasions to Shri Manish
Goel, learned Additional Advocate General, to comply with the
directions contained in the orders dated 03.12.2025 and 18.12.2025. It
was also directed that an officer not below the rank of Secretary shall file
an affidavit detailing the steps taken by the Office of the Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, in compliance with the directions issued
in Manish Kumar Singh (supra).
10. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.02.2026, this Court considered the
affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which disclosed that pursuant to the
order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Manish Kumar Singh (supra) by the
Division Bench of this Court, a Committee had been constituted under
the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
vide order dated 10.12.2025. It was stated that the directions issued in
Manish Kumar Singh (supra) have been complied with, may be after a
delay of nearly two years, for reasons best known to the Department.
11. Accordingly, the Office of the Chief Secretary was directed to
furnish the following details: (i) the original file relating to the
constitution of the Committee, along with the file containing records of
subsequent proceedings, to be produced before this Court for perusal, (ii)
the names of the officers responsible for causing delay in complying
with the directions issued in Manish Kumar Singh (supra), (iii) district-
wise and date-wise details of the Commissioners of Police/Senior
Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police who had complied
with, as well as those who had failed to comply with, the directions
contained in paragraph 29 of the order dated 29.11.2023, and (iv) the
steps taken by the Home Department pursuant to Letter No.12358/RC
(Civil) dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Registrar General of this Court to
all the Commissioners of Police/ Senior Superintendents of Police/
Superintendents of Police through the Director General of Police,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and Letter No.12357/RC

5
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
(Civil) dated 04.12.2023 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Uttar Pradesh.
B. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF
THE MINUTES OF THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE
MEETINGS:
12. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce the
operative portion of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2023 passed in
Manish Kumar Singh (supra) for ready reference:
“26. In light of this context, this Court direct the State
Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee,
comprising of Chief Secretary, as its chairperson, to conduct a
comprehensive examination of all relevant factors, particularly
those outlined herein above. The Committee should include
representatives from all relevant stakeholders, including the
civil administration, public prosecutors, and police department
officers. Their collective input should be used to develop
comprehensive and well-structured guidelines for
continuous/consistent monitoring the progress of investigations.
The copy of the notification constituting the High-Powered
Committee shall be forwarded immediately to the office of the
Registrar General of this court to be kept in the record of this
case.
27. In the event of non-compliance of the aforesaid guidelines
as may be framed, a framework for holding individual officers
accountable and establishing a supervision mechanism at the
District, Zonal, and State Levels should be devised. As one
possible measure to hold errant officers accountable, their
appointment as Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Station Officer
(S.O.), or In-charge of a police station (Chowki-in-charge)
could be withheld for a specified period, among other potential
actions.
28. The authority to establish these guidelines indeed lies
within the purview of the State government. In accordance with
the principles expounded in the judgment, the Committee shall
consider the following:
(i) In the initial phase, the Committee shall formulate
guidelines for monitoring the investigation of First Information
Reports (FIRs) registered by government departments in cases
involving corruption and cheating. Subsequently, it will extend
these guidelines in a phased manner to cover all other FIRs as
may be found suitable and appropriate by the Committee.
(ii) The guidelines should ensure that investigations are
completed within in a phased manner expeditiously, and strictly
in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapters-V, VI,
VII, and XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well

6
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
as other applicable legal provisions intended to facilitate
effective, fair, unbiased, and expeditious investigation.
(iii) In cases the police conclude that no case is made out
against the accused or the suspect, the final report should be
filed strictly in accordance with Regulation 122 (iii) of the U.P.
Police Regulations. The Regulation 122 (i), (ii), and (iv) of the
U.P. Police Regulations, 1861 should also be taken into
consideration while formulating these guidelines.
(iv) The inclusion of mechanisms for systematic date-wise
tracking of court proceedings, both at the district and state
levels, is imperative to guarantee the expeditious disposal of the
case. Moreover, it is imperative for the department to
meticulously have a track on the testimony of witnesses,
ensuring that they depose factually correct, just and necessary
information in the court, devoid of any apprehension or
external factors that could potentially sway the course of
justice, and shall also develop a mechanism for fixing
accountability if a witness act in defiance of law.
29. In the initial phase, this Court directs all Commissioners of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of
Police from all districts to provide a list of FIRs that have been
registered on behalf of government departments. This list shall
include the date of registration of FIR, the time and place of the
incident, the name of the complainant, and the names of the
suspects/accused persons. Additionally, a brief overview of the
progress made in the investigations conducted thus far should
be included. This information must be submitted within one
month from the date of receiving a copy of this order to the
Chief Secretary's office. This quantifiable data collected from
all police stations be used to formulate comprehensive
guidelines.
30. This Court directs all the Commissioners of
Police/SSPs/SPs to endorse their subjective satisfaction by
independently evaluating the circumstances and the material
placed before them, thereby justifying the submission of a final
report as outlined in Regulation 122 (iii) of the U.P. Police
Regulations by a speaking order. The copies of this judgment
shall be dispatched to all Commissioners of Police/SSPs/SPs in
Uttar Pradesh for prompt adherence. A notification, if any, by
government delegating the authority of Commissioner of
Police/S.S.P./S.P.s to any of the subordinate officer to sign and
forward the closure report shall stand inoperative from the date
of this order in cases registered by Government
Department/PSUs/Public Authorities/Co-operative Societies of
Government and/or organisations covered by Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
31. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief
Secretary of Uttar Pradesh with an expectation that guidelines
shall be formulated in a timely manner, preferably within three
months and not exceeding, in any case, beyond a period of six
months. In consequence thereof, the relevant directions/G.O.
shall also be issued to all the civil and police departments as
may be necessary in align with the spirit of this judgment.

7
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
32. A copy of this order be sent to all District Judges, who
should then circulate it amongst all Magistrates, Civil Judges,
and Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned. They are responsible
for ensuring strict adherence to Regulation 122 (iii) of the U.P.
Police Regulations, 2001. The respective judicial officers
should also ensure compliance with the directives outlined in
paragraph 30 of this order and shall take into account the
endorsement provided by the Commissioner of Police/Senior
Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police before taking
cognizance of the matter.”
13. The original file relating to the constitution of the Committee was
produced before this Court for perusal. Compliance with the remaining
directions was directed to be made by way of an affidavit sworn by an
officer not below the rank of the Secretary.
14. A perusal of the file produced before this Court reveals that the
State Government has, by a unanimous resolution, reaffirmed its
foundational commitment to the constitutional concept of a welfare state.
Pursuant to this commitment, the State Government implements various
public utility schemes and conducts government activities and operations
aimed at the welfare of the general public. The State Government has
declared a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption in such schemes,
activities and operations, and remains firmly committed to initiate the
strictest possible action against any individual found to have engaged in
corrupt practices. Consequently, with a view to ensure effective
execution of the State Government’s campaign against corruption,
effective supervision of cases registered by various Government
Departments in this regard has been held to be imperative and
indispensable.
15. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, and in compliance with the
order dated 29.11.2023 passed by this Court, a High-Powered
Committee was constituted on 09.12.2025, comprising the Chief
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, as a Chairman; the Principal
Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary (Home); the Principal Secretary
(Law) and Legal Adviser; the Director General of Police; and the
Director General of Police (Prosecution), as its members. Provision was

8
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
also made enabling the Chairman of the Committee to take the assistance
of any other officer as he may deem fit and proper.
16. It is noteworthy that the Committee was constituted by the Chief
Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, only after this Court took cognizance of the
present matter, and that too after an inordinate delay of nearly two years,
despite the specific direction requiring its constitution within six months.
It was further directed that, in the first phase, all Commissioners of
Police, Senior Superintendents of Police, and Superintendents of Police
across the State shall furnish a list of all FIRs registered at the instance
of Government Departments. Such list was required to contain
particulars including the date of registration of the FIR, the date, time,
and place of occurrence, the name of the informant/complainant, the
names of the suspected or accused persons, and a brief status report
indicating the progress made in the investigation up to that stage.
17. The aforesaid information was directed to be submitted to the
office of the Chief Secretary within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order. The quantifiable data so collected from all police
stations across the State was intended to serve as the basis for
formulating comprehensive guidelines in the matter.
18. Admittedly, there has been a delay of nearly two years in
constituting the Committee. This Court proposes to examine the possible
reasons for such delay and to consider measures for addressing and
mitigating the factors responsible for delays in the implementation of the
orders passed by this Court.
19. Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared
on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, and apprised the Court
that the Committee has started functioning and meetings of the
Committee were convened on 17.12.2025 and 24.12.2025.
20. A brief account of the steps taken by the High-Powered
Committee pursuant to the aforesaid directions is delineated in the
succeeding paragraphs. The Committee took cognizance of the
directions and conditions contained in paragraphs 26 and 28 of Manish

9
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
Kumar Singh (supra), which have already been reproduced hereinabove.
At the initial stage, the High-Powered Committee resolved to constitute
two subordinate committees, namely: (i) the Divisional-Level
Monitoring Committee; and (ii) the District-Level Monitoring
Committee. The constitution of these committees was intended to
facilitate effective monitoring, collection of relevant data, and
implementation of the directions issued by this Court in a structured and
time-bound manner.
21. The Divisional-Level Monitoring Committee shall comprise the
Divisional Commissioner as the Chairperson; the Additional Director
General of Police (Zone) as the Member Secretary; and the Inspector
General of Police (Range), Divisional In-charge, Prison Administration,
and Regional Additional Director (Prosecution) as Members.
22. The District-Level Monitoring Committee shall comprise the
District Magistrate as the Chairperson; the Commissioner of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police as the
Member Secretary; and the Jail Superintendent, Joint Director
(Prosecution), Head of the concerned Department, and such other
officer(s) as may be nominated by the Chairperson, as Members.
23. At the initial stage, the Committee observed that although criminal
cases are already being monitored under the Government of India's
Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS), an additional mechanism
for monitoring at the departmental level is necessary to ensure effective
supervision and coordination. A perusal of the minutes of the meetings
indicates that information relating to criminal cases registered at the
instance of Government Departments is required to be forwarded to the
Committee for review and monitoring.
24. The proceedings further reveal that the Committee considered the
collection and consolidation of such information to be an essential
prerequisite for assessing the status of investigations, identifying
systemic deficiencies, and formulating appropriate recommendations for
effective implementation of the directions issued by this Court.

10
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
25. On 18.02.2026, the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar
Pradesh, filed a compliance affidavit averring that the police,
prosecution and other concerned departments have been directed to
produce the requisite documents before the High-Powered Committee
for further deliberations. The affidavit further records that the Letter
No.12357/ARC (Civil) dated 04.12.2023, issued by the Registrar
General of this Court, was received in the concerned Section through a
letter dated 16.08.2024 issued from the Office of the Chief Secretary.
The affidavit also places on record the following correspondence:
25.1 Letter No.DGJ-Saat-S-14(05)/2024 dated 17.02.2026 issued by
the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Uttar Pradesh,
addressed to all Zonal Additional Directors General of Police, all
Commissioners of Police, and the Additional Directors General of Police
(GRP/EOW/ACO), Uttar Pradesh. It makes reference to the letter of the
Special Secretary, Home (Police) Section-9, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, bearing No.20/Chh-Pu-0-9-2026-1763301 dated 14.02.2026,
through which information was sought in compliance with the order
dated 10.02.2026 passed by this Court in the present petition. Pursuant to
the said letter, all addressees were called upon to furnish; (i) the names
of the officers responsible for the delay in compliance with the order
dated 29.11.2023, and (ii) district-wise and date-wise details of the
Commissioners of Police/ Senior Superintendents of Police/
Superintendents of Police, who had complied with, and those who had
failed to comply with, the directions issued in paragraph 29 of the order
dated 29.11.2023.
25.2 It was further noted therein that, in compliance with the order
dated 29.11.2023, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, has
already issued instructions on 22.12.2023 vide Letter No.DGJ-Das-Vi-
Pu-Writ-470/2023/4387, directing all the Commissioners of Police and
Senior Superintendents of Police/ Superintendents of Police that in cases
registered by the Government departments, Public Sector Undertakings
and Co-operative Societies where the first information report has

11
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
reached the stage of a final report, speaking orders must be passed and
placed before the concerned courts.
25.3 Letter No.2003/Chh-Pu-0-9-2025-1783301 dated 10.12.2025 was
issued by the Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Section-9, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, to all the Divisional Commissioners, Commissioners of
Police, District Magistrates, Senior Superintendents of Police,
Superintendents of Police, and Government Railway Police, Uttar
Pradesh, on the subject of monitoring of FIRs registered by the
Government departments. The letter begins by reaffirming the State
Government’s constitutional obligation to function as a welfare State and
its policy of zero tolerance towards corruption. It further takes note of
the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (‘ICJS’) already operational
in the State for monitoring criminal cases, while observing that better
supervision of FIRs registered by Government departments remains
necessary. The letter then reproduces the operative directions from this
Court’s order dated 29.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.14349/2023, wherein this Court had directed the State to constitute a
High-Powered Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary, comprising
representatives from civil administration, the prosecution and the police,
to develop comprehensive guidelines for monitoring the progress of
investigations.
25.4 The directions further required that, guidelines ensure completion
of investigations in a time-bound manner in accordance with Chapters V,
VI, VII and XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; final reports in
cases of no evidence be filed strictly in accordance with Regulation
122(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations; and that systematic,
date-wise tracking of court proceedings be maintained. Paragraph 29 of
the order directed all the Commissioners of Police/ Senior
Superintendents of Police/ Superintendents of Police to submit a list of
FIRs registered by Government departments to the Office of the Chief
Secretary within one month; paragraph 30 directed them to
independently pass speaking orders before submitting any final report;
paragraph 31 directed the Chief Secretary to formulate comprehensive

12
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
guidelines within three to six months; and paragraph 32 directed all
District Judges to circulate the order to all the Magistrates and Chief
Judicial Magistrates for adherence. In accordance with the aforesaid
directions, a State-level High-Powered Monitoring Committee was
constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Uttar
Pradesh, comprising the Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary
(Home), the Principal Secretary (Law) and Legal Remembrancer, the
Director General of Police, the Director General of Prosecution, and any
other officer considered necessary.
C. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
26. The State Government has, on repeated occasions, resolved and
declared its policy of zero tolerance towards corruption and its
commitment to eradicate corrupt practices from all organs of
governance. Anti-Corruption Department of the Government of Uttar
Pradesh are entrusted with the responsibility of dealing firmly with
officers involved in corruption, which causes loss to the State exchequer
and corrupts the administrative machinery. It is a well-recognized
principle that absolute and untrammelled discretion breeds corruption
and provides fertile ground for discrimination, both of which are
antithetical to due process and the rule of law culture.
27. This Court continues to encounter frequent instances of non-
compliance with its orders. The compliance of the directions issued in
Manish Kumar Singh (supra) was rendered possible only by virtue of the
intervention of this Court in the present case, and that too after an
inordinate delay of two years.
28. In this backdrop, this Court finds itself confronted with several
options; (i) to initiate contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary,
who occupies a unique and pivotal position in the administrative
hierarchy, for failure to comply with the directions of this Court for more
than two years, until the issue was re-agitated in the present proceedings,
(ii) to persuade officers to comply through the salutary apprehension of
contempt, and to await the outcome of their deliberations, (iii) to direct

13
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
the Chief Secretary to appear in person before this Court and explain the
reasons for non-compliance, (iv) to fix personal responsibility and
impose exemplary costs, (v) to direct time-bound compliance
monitoring, (vi) to record an adverse remark against the concerned
officers and transmit the same to the Cadre Controlling Authority, and
(vii) to frame compliance mechanisms and take a strict view of repeated
defiance, etc.
29. This Court records, without any hesitation or ambiguity, that it
possesses full clarity to exercise any of the options enumerated above in
order to maintain public confidence and uphold the rule of law.
However, in the interest of the State and its institutions, this Court deems
it appropriate to refrain, for the time being, from invoking any of the
above said options. This restraint is exercised in the hope and
expectation that public administrators, who are well familiar with the
machinery of the government, are better placed and equipped to evolve
and develop effective mechanisms for implementing public policy and
programmes. Courts, to a considerable extent, consciously avoid
prescribing a catalogue of ‘dos and don’ts’ for civil servants. However,
such judicial restraint must not be mistaken for judicial indifference.
30. As partial compliance of the directions issued in Manish Kumar
Singh (supra) has been effected, and it is given to understand that the
High-Powered Committee has commenced its work, this Court expresses
the hope and expectation that the remaining directions shall also be
complied with in a time-bound manner. In that view of the matter, this
Court does not consider it necessary, at this stage, to escalate the matter
further.
31. Before parting with the present matter, this Court considers it
appropriate to place on record certain observations which, in its
considered opinion, warrant the attention of the Hon’ble the Chief
Minister, Uttar Pradesh that the time has come for the State to evolve
and adopt a doctrine of ‘superior responsibility’, whereby senior officers
in an administrative hierarchy are held accountable- and, in appropriate

14
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
cases, criminally responsible for their failure to prevent or punish acts of
commission or omission by their subordinates. The expression ‘failure to
prevent’ must be understood to include ‘the failure to take timely
administrative measures’ or ‘to report the matter to higher administrative
authorities’. Exceptional situations that produce widespread, systematic
and enduring adverse effects upon public administration demand
exceptional remedies. A duty to report or act may appropriately be
developed within administrative law to address systematic and prevalent
under-performance, negligence, breach of service ethics and dereliction
of service codes. Senior officers must be held accountable for the
conduct and performance of their subordinates, as it is both their
professional and administrative responsibility to ensure the effective
delivery of public services. Such accountability may legitimately be
extended to criminal liability where the failure to prevent or punish leads
to criminal acts such as corruption, fraud, willful suppression of records,
contempt of government orders and Gazette Notifications, and failure to
implement ‘State policy’, and ‘Programmes’, such as zero tolerance
towards organised, institutionalised corruption- whether corruption of
the mind, whereby the decision-making process is deliberately perverted
to serve private ends under the guise of official authority, or corruption
of the purse, whereby public office is converted into an instrument of
personal pecuniary gain.
32. This Court apprehends that a significant impediment to the
effective implementation of directions issued by this Court may lie in the
mindset of certain sections of the bureaucracy, whose approach is not
inclusive and who tend to regard the retention of discretionary power as
an end in itself, thereby undermining legal certainty. The apprehension
of losing discretion may well be one of the principal drivers of ‘red-
tapism’ in public administration. It must be borne in mind that rules and
regulations derive their very rationale from the imperative to limit
unguided discretion as a means of achieving greater accountability and
ensuring that public power is exercised in a transparent, principled and
rule-bound manner.

15
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
33. The present matter was listed and heard on 03.12.2025,
11.12.2025, 18.12.2025, 12.01.2026, 27.01.2026, 10.02.2026,
19.02.2026 and 24.02.2026. On 25.02.2026, the matter was reserved for
orders. The learned Additional Advocate General assured this Court that
the High-Powered Committee has been actively engaging in
deliberations with the concerned stakeholders with a view to complying
with the directions of this Court given in Manish Kumar Singh (supra).
This Court waited for a period of over three months with the expectation
that it would be apprised of the progress of the decisions taken by the
High-Powered Committee before the judgment was pronounced. Two
days prior to the pronouncement of the present judgment, the office of
this Court contacted the learned State counsels to enquire about the
progress of the decisions taken by the High-Powered Committee. No
information has been furnished to this Court till the date of
pronouncement of this judgment, its unfortunate.
34. Learned Additional Advocate General, must appreciate that the
Chief Secretary, functioning as the Secretary to the Cabinet and the
Council of Ministers and serving, in that capacity, as the principal
adviser to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Council of
Ministers on all matters of civil administration, policy implementation,
and inter-departmental coordination, occupies a special and privileged
position and is, in every sense, the keystone of the arch of State
administration. It is, therefore, imperative that the learned law officers
conduct themselves with extraordinary vigilance, circumspection, and a
heightened sense of institutional responsibility while discharging their
duties.
35. On merits of the present case, no response has been received from
the office of the respondent no.2- the Regional Passport Authority,
Bareilly, till the pronouncement of this judgment.
D. ORDER:
36. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the
impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,

16
Matters Under Article 227 No.13425 of 2025
Bareilly, is hereby set aside. The instant petition is accordingly allowed.
‘No Objection Certificate (NOC)’ is hereby issued in favour of the
petitioner for renewal of his passport. The Regional Passport Authority,
Bareilly is directed to issue/renew the passport in favour of the
petitioner, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
37. The Registrar (Compliance) is hereby directed to forthwith
transmit a certified copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Uttar Pradesh, with a direction that the proceedings of the High-
Powered Committee be concluded in a timely and effective manner, so
as to give full effect to the directions issued in Manish Kumar Singh
(supra), and that a structured procedure be evolved and comprehensive
guidelines be framed to address the issues raised in the aforesaid
judgment, along with an effective and swift accountability mechanism
for the errant officers. The Chief Secretary is further directed to place a
copy of this order before Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for
perusal and due consideration of the concerns flagged in ‘paragraph 31’
of this order.
June 03, 2026
A. Tripathi
(Vinod Diwakar, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AKHILESH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad