IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4816 of 2026 Dated: 09.03.2026 Between:

Sri Kore Jangaiah …Petitioner AND The Union of India & others …Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed to declaring the action of the respondent passport authorities in impounding the petitioner’s Passport bearing No.Y6750778 vide Letter Ref.No.HYD/30/POL/PIC/918/2023, dated: September, 2024 and Show-Cause Notice Ref.No.SCN/316133493/23 dated 04.11.2023, on the ground of pendency of CC No. 468/2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Social Welfare Scam Cases Court, Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal, irregular and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent passport authorities to release/return the petitioner’s impounded passport by considering the representation submitted by the Petitioner dated 26.11.2025.

2. Heard Sri S.A. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. NVR Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in criminal cases cannot be a ground for denial of releasing/returning the passport. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3211 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that criminal case is pending against the petitioner vide CC No. 468/2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Social Welfare Scam Cases Court, Hyderabad. She, by referring to Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, submits that in view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, 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 releasing/returning 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 release/return the passport.

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 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 releasing/returning 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 releasing/returning the passport. Upon filing such application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate order