##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.6517 of 2026

Dated: 03.03.2026

Between:

Sri Manga Sreedhar Goud

…Petitioner

AND

The Union of India & others

…Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of Respondent

Nos.1 and 2 in not reissuing/renewing the petitioner’s passport

vide File No.HY2075555178725, dated 28.08.2025, on the ground

of pendency of a criminal case.

2. Heard Sri V. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Smt. NVR Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central

Government representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy

Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned

Government Pleader for Home, for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere

arraignment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground

for denial of passport. He relies on the judgment of this Court in

W.P.No.31316 of 2025, dated 27.10.2025.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits

that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner vide

C.C.No.1809 of 2024 before the learned IX Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate Court at Medchal. It is submitted that the respondent

authorities would consider the petitioner’s application, provided he

furnishes NOC from the court where the criminal case is pending

against him.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of both

parties and perused the material available on record. It is settled

law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a

ground to refuse issuance of passport. In this connection, it is

relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench

of this Court in W.A.No.194 of 2026, dated 17.02.2026, wherein

the Division Bench has observed as follows:

“13. In the light of the principle laid down by the

Apex Court concerning the interpretation of GSR

570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Office Memorandum

dated 10.10.2019, we are of the considered view that

the appellant should make an application for

seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where

3

criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon

issuance of NOC that the appellant should file an

application for renewal of the passport. In case the

courts prescribe a period for which the passport is to

be issued, the passport authority should honour

that period. Otherwise, if it does not stipulate any

period, the notification provides default rules,

including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily

one year, in appropriate cases.”

6. In the instant case, there is no material placed on record to

show that the petitioner filed an application before the concerned

trial Court seeking a “No Objection Certificate” for obtaining of

passport. In view of the pending criminal proceedings against the

petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner

to approach the concerned trial Court and make an appropriate

application seeking a “No Objection Certificate” for obtaining

passport. Upon filing such application, the concerned trial Court

shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously,

preferably within one week from the date of filing of such

application. Upon furnishing the NOC by the petitioner, the

passport authority shall consider the same for reissuing/renewing

of passport in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that the NOC that may be issued by the trial

Court to the petitioner for obtaining passport shall not be

construed as a permission to travel abroad. In case the petitioner

intends to travel abroad during pendency of criminal proceedings,

4

the petitioner shall file a separate application seeking permission to

travel abroad, by specifying the duration of travel, and the trial

Court shall consider such application on its own merits, by

imposing appropriate conditions in accordance with law. Needless

to mention that the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with

law to secure the presence of the petitioner in case o