IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4535 of 2026 Dated: 18.03.2026 Between:

SRI Mohammed Abdul Fazal E Hai Abbasi …Petitioner AND The Union of India & Another …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not renewing the petitioner’s passport bearing No.N0498490, pursuant to application vide File No.HY1075136301925 dated 05.06.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Abdul Qavi Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. NVR Rajyalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government representing Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor Genral of India, for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for renewal of passport, which was not considered on the ground of pendency of a criminal case in C.C. No.12612 of 2020 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad. The said criminal case has been disposed of by judgment dated 29.01.2026, wherein the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. He submits that once the petitioner is acquitted, the very basis for refusal of renewal of passport no longer survives and the action of respondent No.2 is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that even pendency of a criminal case cannot be an absolute ground to refuse renewal of passport, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. He submits that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. Therefore, refusal to renew the passport of the petitioner is violative of statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, on instructions, submits that during processing of the petitioner’s application, it was noticed that multiple passport records with different particulars were reflected against the petitioner’s photograph, which required verification. She submits that a discreet enquiry was conducted through the police authorities, wherein it was reported that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner at the relevant time. She submits that as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, issuance or renewal of passport can be refused if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant. She submits that the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of the criminal case at the time of his application.

She submits that the petitioner has not yet furnished proper clarification regarding discrepancies in passport records. She further submits that the petitioner’s application can be reconsidered if he submits the acquittal order and proper explanation regarding discrepancies in records.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for renewal of passport on 05.06.2025, at that time, a criminal case was pending and the said case has subsequently been disposed of in acquittal on 29.01.2026. Thus, the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, which formed the basis for non-renewal, no longer survives. At the same time, respondent No.2 has raised certain issues relating to discrepancies in records, which require clarification from the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that refusal to renew the passport solely on the ground of a criminal case, which has already ended in acquittal, cannot be sustained. However, the petitioner is required to cooperate with the respondent authorities and furnish necessary documents and explanations for proper processing of his application.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:

i. The pe