IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.39188 of 2025 Dated: 24.02.2026 Between:

Sri Jogu Ramanna …Petitioner AND The Union of India & others …Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of Respondent No.2 in not reissuing/renewing the petitioner’s passport vide File No.HYE077251549324, dated 27.12.2024, on the ground of pendency of criminal cases.

2. Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. NVR Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in criminal cases 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 and 2 submits that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.277 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JFCM) at Adilabad. 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.196 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 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, 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 of violation of any of the conditions so imposed while