##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.9282 of 2026

01.04.2026

Between:

Sri Madhu Sudan Podugu …Petitioner

AND

The Union of India and others …Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent

passport authorities in not reissuing/renewing the petitioner’s passport vide File No.HY1075450670523, dated 08.06.2023, on the

ground of pendency of a criminal case.

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, 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 a criminal case cannot be a ground

2

for denial of reissuance/renewal 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.707 of 2019 before the learned XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. 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 reissuance /renewal 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

reissue/renew 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 reissuance/renewal of passport. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the orders passed by the

3

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 reissuance/renewal 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 reissuance/renewal 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

4

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 concerned trial Court for reissuance/renewal of passport shall not be construed as a permission to travel