Mere pendency of criminal cases is not a bar for passport authorities to process applications for issuance or reissuance.

ORDER

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the communication order passed by the 1st respondent herein in his proceedings in Letter Ref.No.SCN/1053953984/26 dated 27.2.2026, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reissue passport to the petitioner based on the petitioners file NO.CB1076364129626 dated 9.2.2026.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for re-

issuance of passport, however, the first respondent sent the communication dated 27.02.2026 stating that adverse report is sent by the police with regard to the criminal cases are pending in Cr.Nos.291/2024 on the file of the second respondent and Cr.No.302/2021 on the file of the third respondent. Challenging the said communication, the instant writ petition is filed.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5. At the outset, it is relevant to note that mere pendency of the criminal case, it is not a bar for processing the application for issuance of passport. This aspect has been clearly held by the First Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Passport Officer vs. Samsudeen Mohamed Salih and another made in W.A.No.902 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as follows:-

" 5. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992, to which one of us (S.V.Gangapurwala, CJ.) was a party, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, supra and directed the respondent therein to process the application of the petitioner for renewal of the passport.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent cannot travel abroad without the permission of the Court where the criminal case is pending, would not be an impediment for the passport authority to consider the application for renewal of the passport. No doubt, if the first respondent has to travel abroad and the criminal case is pending, then unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Court where the criminal case is pending permits the first respondent to travel abroad, he cannot travel abroad."

6. It is also apposite to refer to the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation made in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017 dated 27.09.2021, the appellant therein was convicted to undergo one year of imprisonment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

"Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.

The passport authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court. Subject to the other conditions being fulfilled, the Interlocutory Application stands disposed of."

7. Considering the above judgments, I am of the view that mere pendency of the criminal cases are not a bar for processing the passport. Such view of the matter, the impugned communication is liable to set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for re issuance of the passport if otherwise, the petitioner satisfies other conditions. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is also made clea