SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Sri Balvinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 37054 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SETTY RAVI TEJA
For the Respondent: N BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of India

The court affirmed that a passport may be denied if criminal proceedings are pending, reinforcing the requirement for a court order for permission to travel abroad as per Gazette Notification GSR 570(E).

Headnote:(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 - Refusal of passport renewal - Petitioner contended that pending criminal cases cannot be grounds for denial of passport renewal as it violates right to personal liberty - The Court ruled that regulations permit refusal if criminal proceedings are pending, and no order from courts permitting travel was submitted - The terms of the Gazette Notification were affirmed, indicating a passport must be issued for one year in absence of specific court orders. (Paras 7, 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, engaged in importing electronic goods, faced multiple criminal cases leading to non-payment of loans and subsequent reports filed with CBI, resulting in the impounding of his passport and issued Look Out Circulars against him. (Paras 1.1 - 1.12)

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the refusal of passport renewal based on the provisions under the Passports Act and Gazette Notification, affirming that non-acquittal from criminal proceedings allows for passport issuance only for one year. (Paras 11 - 13)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the refusal to renew the passport due to pending criminal cases infringes personal liberty and the legal grounds regarding passport issuance during ongoing litigation. (Paras 1.10 - 1.12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that right to travel is a part of personal liberty, but must be balanced with legal provisions that allow authorities to deny passport issuance in light of potential criminal proceedings pending against individuals. The court emphasized adherence to the Gazette Notification and the requests for court orders for longer validity. (Paras 7, 10)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's analysis of the legal provisions (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. ratio decidendi on passport issuance under pending criminal cases (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. final conclusion dismissing the writ petition (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

This Writ Petition is a checkered litigation. The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner is the Managing Director of PCH Group of Companies i.e. PCH Corporation Limited, PCH Lifestyle Limited and PCH Retail Limited. The said companies are engaged in the business of importing Electronics Goods like Laptops, Mobiles, Furniture and Consumer durables from various countries and to carry the business activities, petitioner he has to travel abroad.

1.1. It is stated, the above companies had availed loan/credit facility from various Banks and defaulted in repayment. Hence, petitioners accounts were declared as NPA in 2013. Consequently, the Banks have lodged complaints/reports with CBI at Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad.

1.2. It is stated, based on the report of Punjab and Sind Bank, George Town Br, Chennai, CBI, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai registered R.C. No. 10/E/2014 under Sections 420, 468 and 120(B) IPC. and petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2015 and was later enlarged on bail on 22.06.2015 by Madras High Court. The CBI-EOW/Chennai addressed letter to the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad to impound petitioner's passport bearing No. 22507790 dated 26.08.2013. Accordingly, the Regional Passport Officer impounded the passport on 15.04.2015 by proceedings No. 30(21) PO 1/2015 and the same was confirmed by proceedings No. VIII/402/App-55/2015 dated 22.08.2015. Challenging these proceedings and also seeking a direction to Respondents to permit him travel abroad, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 36913 of 2015, wherein this Court by order dated 16.12.2016 granted interim suspension of the impugned order, pursuant to which, he travelled abroad for 35 times.

1.3. While so, a Look Out Circular was issued against petitioner by the CBI, EOW, Chennai. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl.O.P. No. 11044 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 before the High Court of Madras. On 24.06.2015 the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai to withdraw the Look Out Circular. The CBI, EOW, Chennai filed a charge sheet before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Alikulam) Egnore, Chennai, under Sections 120(B) read with 420 IPC and it was numbered as C.C. No. 5231 of 2015.

1.4. The State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Hyderabad lodged a report before CBI, EOW, Chennai for non- payment of its dues which was registered as R.C. No. 10/E/ 2017 dated 15.12.2017 under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477(A) of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently the said report was transferred to CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, for investigation wherein a charge sheet was filed and it was numbered as C.C. No. 5574 of 2022 on the file of the XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

1.5. The Andhra Bank represented by its Circle General Manager lodged a report before CBI, BS&FC, Bengaluru for non- payment of its dues and it is registered as R.C. No. 1 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019 under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC. A Look Out Circular was also issued by the CBI, BS&FC, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by this Look Out Circular, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7882 of 2019 wherein this Court on 25.04.2019 Court passed the following order:

“ There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to deprive the petitioner of the privilege of foreign travel, unless and until the Passport is impounded. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take steps regarding intimation of his travel details to Respondent No. 4 - CBI.

Further, the petitioner shall give an undertaking before this court by way of an aff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top