IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.35947 of 2025

18.03.2026 Between:

Sri Shiva Sai Reddy Thummala …Petitioner AND Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and another …Respondents

ORDER:

The petitioner’s passport No.C-3100264 was impounded by the 2nd respondent-passport authority, vide letter dated 21.04.2025, on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against him in C.C.No.63 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial 2. Heard Ms.Bandari Divya, learned counsel representing Ms.Sravya Katta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground for impounding the passport. She relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3211 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026.

4. Learned Standing Counsel, 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 produce NOC / permission from the concerned trial Court, however, as there is no NOC furnished by the petitioner, the passport of the petitioner has been impounded and therefore the action of respondent authorities cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

5. Having considered the respective submissions, at the outset, 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, admittedly, criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Though pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance / renewal of passport, the grounds taken by the passport authority for impounding the passport is that the petitioner has not disclosed the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, and further 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. The petitioner, in the first place, ought to have approached the trial Court for necessary NOC, and should have furnished the NOC along with his passport application for obtaining the passport, and in the absence of such an exercise on the part of the petitioner, the impugned action of the passport authority in impounding the passport cannot be said to be illegal.

7. Be that as it may, in view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.63 of 2024 on the file of learned appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the court of learned 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 s