Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J
MR. KUMAR PUJAR DODDANAIK – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE BENGALURU – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.20845 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kiran R.
For the Respondents: Swamini G. Mohanambal
The right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; therefore, passport renewal cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal proceedings, provided the individual obtains necessary court permission before traveling.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a letter dated 02.07.2026 issued by the respondent passport authority, which refused the renewal of the petitioner's passport on the grounds that a court judgment allowing travel abroad was not submitted, given a pending proceeding in Crime No. 9/2017. The court found that the right to travel is a fundamental right. The primary issue was whether the passport authority could deny the renewal of a passport due to pending criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, as upheld by the Apex Court, and the respondent cannot deny renewal, especially when the petitioner undertook to obtain permission from the concerned court before traveling. The writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the denial of passport renewal due to pending criminal proceedings and the petitioner's undertaking to seek court permission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the right to travel is a fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution of india. (Para 5) |
| 3. direction to the passport authority to renew the passport subject to the condition of obtaining court permission before travel. (Para 6) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 02.07.2026 BEARING REF NO. OBJ/1055711276/26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. Smt.Swamini Mohanambal, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“WHEREFORE, It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:
a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order in the nature of Writ quashing the Letter dated 02.07.2026 bearing Ref No.OBJ/1055711276/26 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner at Annexure A;
b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order in the nature of Writ directing the Respondent to consider the Online Passport Application Receipt bearing ARN NO.B26-1056425366 for the passport renewal by the petitioner and renew the passport of the petitioner at Annexure D.
c. Grant other such reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and direct the respondent to pay the costs and expenses of this writ petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The petitioner being a permanent resident of J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, is working as an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation. The petitioner having made an application for renewal of his passport, an Endorsement at Annexure-A dated 02.07.2026 came to be issued stating that the petitioner had not submitted a Court Judgment/Decision allowing the petitioner to travel abroad. There is a proceeding pending in Crime No.9/2017 initiated by the ACB, Bangalore City Police Station.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the petitioner were to travel, he would obtain the said permission from the concerned Court in seizure of Crime No.9/2017 and only thereafter travel.
5. In view of the categorical undertaking of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the right to travel being a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is recognized and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India reported in (2025 INSC 1476), the respondent- Passport Authority cannot deny renewal of the passport to the petitioner. Albeit, the renewal can always be on a short validity basis, the apprehension of the respondent being addressed by the petitioner obtaining such permission from the concerned Court seized of the criminal proceeding before travelling abroad.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the following
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) A certiorari is issued, the letter dated 02.07.2026 bearing Ref.No.OBJ/1055711276/26 issued by the respondent at Annexure-A is quashed.
(iii) A mandamus is issued directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and grant renewal of the passport of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(iv) It is made clear that the petitioner shall be permitted to travel only after obtaining the permission from the concerned Court in seizure of the criminal proceedings.
