IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.5943 of 2026

06.03.2026 Between:

Smt. Chennamaneni Kavitha …Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep., by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Shastry Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001 & another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.2 passport authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s renewal application vide Application Reference (ARN) No.26-1053375899, dated 21.02.2026, for renewal of Passport No.N7982100 on

23.02.2016, on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

2. Heard Mr. K.S. Suneel learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel representing on behalf of Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in criminal cases cannot be a ground for refusing renewal of passport.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that criminal case is pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.4309 of 2017 on the file of learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad-cum-XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. In view of the pending criminal proceedings, the petitioner is required to approach the concerned trial Court for necessary NOC/permission to obtain passport, and thereafter furnish the same before the passport authority for considering renewal of passport. In the instant case, the petitioner has not furnished NOC/permission from the trial Court and therefore there is no illegality in refusing to renew the passport.

5. It is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance/renewal of passport. Further, 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 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 a 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 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, 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