VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the preset petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 17.07.2018 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by respondent no.1 (Regional Passport Officer) denying the petitioner‘s request for re-issuance of the passport. In the impugned order, respondent no.1 has referred to a notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Central Government – being GSR No. 570 (E) – and indicated that the petitioner‘s application would be processed only on receipt of an NOC from the concerned Court in terms of the said notification.

2. The petitioner contends that no such NOC is required as the petitioner‘s application for the same was withdrawn in view of the stand of respondent no.3 (Central Bureau of Investigation – CBI) that no such NOC is required.

3. It is apparent from the above that the petitioner‘s predicament arises from respondent no.1‘s decision not to process the petitioner‘s application for issuance of passport without NOC from the concerned court where criminal proceedings are pending and respondent no.3‘s stand that no such NOC is required.

Factual Background

4. On 08.11.2004, an FIR was, inter alia, registered against the petitioner under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner was that while posted as the Group General Manager of a public-sector undertaking (TCIL), he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused and abused his official position, in the matter of appointment of a fictitious firm as an agent for a project awarded to TCIL by M/s Bhutan Telecom and thereby causing wrongful pecuniary loss to the exchequer.

5. On 07.01.2008, respondent no.3 (CBI) filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner under the afore-mentioned provisions. On 22.02.2008, the Trial Court took the cognizance of the said charges and commenced trial.

6. During the course of the trial, the term of the petitioner‘s passport expired. Accordingly, in May/June, 2014, the petitioner filed an application seeking no objection from the Trial Court for renewal of his passport. The learned Trial Court acceded to the petitioner‘s request and granted the NOC. However, the petitioner could not complete the formalities for renewal of the passport prior to completion of the trial.

7. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner by a judgment dated 12.09.2014. By an order dated 15.09.2014, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.10,00,000/-. This Court is informed that the petitioner has deposited the fine as directed.

8. Aggrieved by the conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in this Court (Crl. Appeal No. 1464 of 2014) impugning the judgment dated 12.09.2014 and the order of sentence dated 15.09.2014. On 21.08.2017, this Court passed an order suspending the sentence of the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal appeal.

9. After the suspension of sentence, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of his passport. However, the same was not processed as the petitioner had not enclosed an NOC by the concerned Court.

10. In view of the above, the petitioner filed an application in the appellate proceedings pending before this Court (Crl. Misc. Application No. 18189 of 2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 1464 of 2014) seeking permission for renewal of his passport. Respondent no.3 (CBI) opposed the said application and filed a reply on 11.12.2017. CBI contended that there was no requirement for issuance of an NOC, as NOC was required only in cases where criminal proceedings against the accused were pending and not in cases where he was already convicted.

11. The petitioner claims that in view of the aforesaid stand, he withdrew his application for an NOC and approached respondents (respondent no.1 and 2) by way of representations dated 01.02.2018 and 26.02.2018, respectively. Accor