IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.175 of 2026 Dated: 13.02.2026 Between:

Matta Sai Kumar Goud …Appellant and The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi – 110011, and 2 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri Mutyala Muralidhar appears for the appellant.

Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The appellant preferred the instant appeal challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned writ court in W.P.No.536 of

2026 preferred by him.

3. The learned writ court disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

“5. Be that as it may, considering the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24690 of 2025, dated 03.09.2025, and the purpose for which the passport is being requested by the petitioner, this Court directs the respondent No.2 to issue the passport to the petitioner on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in C.C.No.8266 of 2020, pending on the file of learned XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally., stating that he shall not leave India during pendency of the said C.C., without permission of the Court and that he shall cooperate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said C.C;

ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (2) weeks therefrom;

iii) The petitioner herein shall submit an application afresh along with certified copy of this order as well as the aforesaid undertaking before the Passport Officer/

Authority concerned for renewing the passport;

iv) On filing such an application, the Passport Officer/ Authority shall consider the same afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewing the passport, in accordance with law, within three (03) weeks from the date of said application;

v) Respondent No.2 shall consider the Passport Rules, 1967 while considering the application for renewing of the passport to the petitioner;

vi) The competent authority shall specify the permission period of one year for the petitioner to renew the passport for travelling abroad, and also obtain appropriate undertaking from the petitioner stating that the petitioner shall not overstay the permitted period and shall surrender the passport upon return to India.

vii) Any other condition as deemed appropriate by the trial Court.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.”

4. The appellant is aggrieved, as the learned writ court has confined the relief for renewal of the passport for only one year instead of ten years.

5. This issue either ought to have been canvassed before the learned writ court or could be raised by way of a review application by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the learned writ court for modification or review of the impugned order.

7. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J

13.02.2026 vs