IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.7342 of 2026 Dated: 13.03.2026 Between:

Mamidipalli Srinivas …Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & others …Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent passport authorities in not issuing the petitioner’s passport vide File No.HY7066382084326, dated 11.02.2026, on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.

2. Heard Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Learned Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

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.3211 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.95 of 2023 before the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 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 issuance 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 issue 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 issuance 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 issuance of 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 issuance 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 issuance of passport shall not be construed as a permission to travel abroad. In case the pet