##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.9075 of 2026

07.04.2026

Between:

Thoutam Subhadra Kumar

…Petitioner

AND

Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs,

New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & 2 others …Respondents

ORDER:

(On Being Mentioned)

This matter is moved by way of on being mentioned, seeking

correction of the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9075 of 2026, as certain corrections are required to be carried out. Therefore, the Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the said order dated 26.03.2026 passed in W.P.No.9075

of 2026 and issue the modified order accordingly as follows:

2. The petitioner made an application to the respondent-Passport authority seeking reissuance of passport vide file No.HY8077026323724, dated 03.12.2024; however, the passport

2

authority refused to reissue the same on the ground that the police verification revealed adverse report stating that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner in Crime No.171 of 2022 and the case is pending trial vide C.C.No.1308 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) under PCR Act-cum-II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda.

3. Heard Ms.B.Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Angothu Nehru, learned Standing Counsel representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Government Pleader for Home, for

respondent No.3. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground for denial of passport. Therefore, seeks reissuance of the said passport without

reference to the pendency of criminal case.

5. 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. Further 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,

3

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 petitioner has 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 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 learn