IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.10518 of 2026 Dated: 21.04.2026 Between:

Abhishek Basu …Petitioner AND The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs Department, New Delhi & another. …Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent passport authorities in not issuing the petitioner’s passport vide File No.HYJ076427944726 on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.

2. Heard Mr.M.Raj Kumar Grandhi, 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 for denial of issuance 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 criminal case is pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.1004 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Sangareddy. 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 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 issue 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 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 issuance 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 issuance 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.”

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 issuance of passport. In view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct