##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.9854 of 2026

06.04.2026

Between:

Alugubelli Karunakar Reddy and another …Petitioners

AND The Union of India,

Represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs Department,

South Block, Secretariat, New Delhi and 2 others …Respondents

ORDER:

The petitioners made an application to the respondent-Passport

authority seeking renewal of their passport; however, the passport authority refused to renew the same on the ground that the police verification revealed adverse report stating that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioners in Crime No.56 of 2020 and the case is pending trial vide C.C.No.1502 of 2020 on the file of learned

Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodada.

2. Heard Sri I.V.Radha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Karuna Sagar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned

2 NBK,J WP_9854_2026

Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that mere arraignment of the petitioners in a criminal case cannot be a ground for denial of passport. Therefore, he seeks renewal of the said passports without

reference to the pendency of criminal case.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.194 of

2026, dated 17.02.2026.

5. 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 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 petitioners have not furnished NOC/permission from the trial Court and

therefore there is no illegality in refusing to renew the passport.

6. Having considered the respective submissions, at the outset, it is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance of passport. In this connection, it is

3 NBK,J WP_9854_2026

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.”

14. Since the passport of the appellant is going to expire on 28.02.2026, the appellant is at liberty to make an application for issuance of NOC from the concerned courts within this week. If such an application is made before the learned courts, the learned courts would endeavour to take it up expeditiously, preferably within a week, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties. It is for the appellant to seek renewal of passport based upon such NOC before the Regional Passport Authority. Needless to say, the Regional Passport Authority would consider the request of extension in accordance with law i.e., the Passports Act, 1967, GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Office Memorandum dated

10.10.2019 applicable to the case on hand