The mere pendency of a criminal case does not act as an automatic or absolute bar to the issuance of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967, as the right to travel is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not considering the Petitioners application vide no. HY3066284971626 for issuing a fresh passport as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to complete the process of the passport application filed by the Petitioner, by considering the application vide no. HY3066284971626, in accordance with the law and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Direct the Respondent No 3rd Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s application vide no. HY3066284971626 for issuing of Passport forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.CHAITANYA PALISETTY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard Sri Chaitanya Palisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The writ petition is moved by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioner’s application vide application No.HY3066284971626, for issuing fresh passport, being illegal, violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The facts, which are stemmed from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as follows:

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record that the petitioner applied for passport vide application No. HY3066284971626 dated 09.01.2026 and appeared before the passport authorities. Along with the application, all the required documents were submitted and the original documents were verified by the interviewing officer and in spite of the said compliance, the passport is not issued.

(b) On 17.03.2026, the petitioner received an objection letter from the 3rd respondent addressing that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in the Court and sought clarification and to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a criminal case is pending on the file the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, under Sections 420, 409 r/w 109 I.P.C in C.C.No.665 of 2023, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Learned counsel would submit that the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in processing the application for issuance of the passport is nothing but depriving from the right accrued to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again under scored that Right to Travel also embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel would submit that mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be treated as an absolute bar for issuance of the passport and in the present case, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the case and in view of the said fact, the 3rd respondent cannot deny issuance of passport to the petitioner.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam and others¹AIR 1967 SC 1836 wherein it is