The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. SYED NAJMUL HASSAI{ Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO DEPUry SOLICIT( The Court made the following: ORDER BAQRI R GENERAL OF ]NDIA I i I ' I I I I THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.29663 OF 2025 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "lssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in th€, nature of VJrit of ilandamus, declaring the action of 2"i res6:ondent in issuing a letter dated 03.09.205, as being ilregal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the prrncioles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14 't9, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and also in contravention of Apex Court judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of lnvestigation aod con.equently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the applrcatron of the petitioner for issuance of Passport to the peirtroner as per law... ... ..."

2.1 Learried Counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the present Writ Petitron has been instituted being aggrieved by the communicatron dated 03.09.2025 issued by the respondent No 2/the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), whereby the petitroner's request for renewal of his passport was withheld on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case. I I I 2

2.2. lt is further averred that, in response t, communication dated 03.09.2025, the petitioner , .the RPO's submitted a detailed reply on 19.09.2025, asserting that the :riminal case registered against him was false and vindictive in r i ture, and that the matter was likely to be amicably settled before [i e Lok Adalat. He further stated that he possesses no criminal ar t :cedents, has maintained a good travel record, and seeks re newal of his passport to undertake religious travel to Saudi Arall a. However, it is contended that the RPO, without duly c,: rsidering the explanation furnished, informed the petitioner tlt rt unless the pending criminal case was quashed or the p etitioner was acquitted, his passport could not be renewed. Aggr eved thereby, the petitioner has approacheo this CoLttl seeki^ 7 appropriate relief.

3.1 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner further :ontends that the issue raised herein is no longer res integra. -le draws the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered ir \shith Ragi v Union of /ndla, represented by the Secretary tr) Government, Ministry of External Affairs, Ner,v Delhi (V/ P. No l I927 of 2025, decided on 24 04.2O25), wherein this Courl categoi- lally held that refusal to issue or renew a passport solely on r,:: ground of J pendency of a criminal case, in the absence of conviction, is arbitrary and contrary to law.

3.2. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of lnvestigation l(202O) Crl. L.J. (SC) 572], wherein the Apex Court held that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the issuance or renewal of a passport, unless the competent criminal court has specifically restricted the applicant's right to obtain one.

3.3. On the strenglh of these judicial pronouncements, learned counsel submits that the action of respondent No.2/RPO in withholding ihe renewal of the petitioner's passport merely due to the pencieni:y of a crtnrinal case is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 oF the Constitution of lndia. He, therefore, prays that tnis Court ntay be pleased to direct the respondent authorities t,) renew the petitioner's passport in accordance with law.

4. I have carefully 5rerused the material on record.

5. The petitioner's application for renewal of passport was witnheld by respondent No.2/RPO on the ground that a criminal 4 case, bearing Crime No. 3gg of 2018, is pendir g against him before the lX Additional Chief Metropolita ). Magistrate, Hyderabad, arising out of Narayanaguda porice srr tion. 6. The petitioner asserts that despite hir; i-epty dated 10.09.2025 to the RpO, he was informed that r rnewal of his passport could be considered only upon produ(rl on of a final judgment of acquittal, thereby imposing a pr,-. ;ondition not warranted by law. However, from the pleadings, it i ; sviflsnf th61 no formal or reasoned order has been passed ll respondent No.2/RPO to that effect.

7. ln this context, it is necessary lo clarify th,r though the pendency of a criminal cas,-. dces noi rii56 facto r:.rrate as an absolute bar to renewal of a passport. the process is ;overned by the statutory framework under the passp,rrt Act, i : i7. and the Government of lndia Notificatiorr G S R 5ZJ(E) dateci 25.08. j993. 8. Under Section 6(2Xf) of the passport Ar;, 1967, the Passport Authority may refuse to issue or renew . passport if proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pen. r rg before a criminal court in lndia, unless the applicant obtain: termission from the court where such proceedings are pending. { I I 5

9. The Notification G.S.R. 570(E) carves out a statutory exemption, permitting the issuance or renewal of a passport to such applicants, provided they produce either (i) a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or (ii) an order of permission from the competent court allowing renewal during the pendency of the criminal case-

10. ln light of the above statutory scheme' the standard procedure for an indiviriual facing pending criminal proceedings to seek renewal of passport is as follows: i) The applicant must file a formal application before the concerned trial court seeking issuance of an NOC for renewal of the passport. ii) Upon such application, the courl shall notify the prosecution and afford it an opporltrrrity to submit objeciions, if any. iii) Upon considertng the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the stage of proceedings, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of misuse of the passport, the court shall pass a reasoned order either granting or denying permission. 6 iv) Where an NOC is granted, the court may irr oose appropriate conditions, such as seeking prior leave f,: travel abroad, furnishing security, or periodic reporting to autht: ities. v) The discretion vested in the trial court n r st be exercised consistent with the presumption of innocen,;:, ensuring that denial of an NOC remains an exception justifierl only by potential obstruction to the administralion of justice. vi) Once the NOC or court order is produce J, ttre passport Authority is bound to process the renew;r apolication in accordance with law.

11. Consequently, in every case where rer ( wel is withheld under Section 6(2)(f), the proper course for the tr rplir:ant ts first to seek permission from the trial court and c,nly thr., eal1er approach the Passport Authority.

12. At this juncture it is appropriate b note rat rhe Hor,ble Supreme Court, in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharytlr v CBI l(202O) Crl. L.J. (SC) 572], affirmed that unless there r xisrs a specific statutory prohibition or an adverse order of the . )rnl:,etent court, mere pendency of a criminal case cannot c ; tstiiule a valid ground to deny renewal or issuance of a pas,; rort. The Court 7 emphasized that refusal solely on such grounds would be arbitrary and contrary to the beneficial object of the 1993 Notification

13. Similarly, this Court in Ashith Ragi v. Union of lndia (W.P. No. 11927 of 2025, decided on 24.04.2025) reiterated that possession of a passport does not, by itself, entitle the holder to travel abroad, as the power to impose travel restrictions lies with the criminal court. Thus, while renewal of a passport cannot be refused solely due to the penderrcy of proceedings, travel may still be regulated by imposing appropriate conditions or requiring prior leave of the concerned court Accordingly, unless renewal would obstruct or delay the due course of justlce, the normal rule should be to permit renewal, subject to reasonable conditions, thereby upholding the liberal and reformative intent underlying the 1993 Notification.

14. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sannith Reddy Mandhadi v. lJnion of lndia and another (W.P No 2422 of 2O24, decided on 26.02.2024) held that .Ihe Court reaffirmed that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot operate as an absolute bar to issuance or renewal of a passport lnstead, the Court 8 adopted a balanced approach, petitioner's constitutional right ensunng pri) ectton of the to travel (Ar1 cle 21), and safeguarding the interests of justice by requiring c( urt supervision and undertakings. Further directed that the pass[), )rt be renewed subject to undertakings and deposit before the rjai court the Court harmonized individual liberty with the j;dicral control necessary during pendency of criminal proceedings 15 lt is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Su: eme Court in Whitpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark.; i4umbai and Others [('1998) 8 SCC 1] authoritatively hetd th.i although the High Court normally does not entertain a writ petitior ,-inder Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia when an effective r r,:t efficacious alternative remedy is available, the existence of s L :h remerJy rs not an absolute bar. The Court delineated three r ll_recognized exceptions wherein writ jurisdiction may still :r _. exercrsed (i) where the writ is filed for enforcement of fundam: -rrat rights. or (ti) where there has been violation of principles of l ilural justice. or (iii) where the order or proceedings are v/ oily without lurisdiction, or the vires of an Act is challenged. / t , i. 'I o

16. ln the present case, since the petitioner's request for renewal was withheld by the RPO citing pendency of criminal proceedings, the proper course availabb to him was to approach the concerned trial court and seek leave or an NOC for renewal of his passport. lnstead, he directly invoked the writ jurisdiction, citing religious urgency and asserting absence of criminal antecedents or misuse of passport. However' apart from such general assertions, the petitioner has failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

17. ln view of the foregoing cliscussion and the statutory framework, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of exceptional contingencies, the petitioner is directed to approach the trial court before which the criminal case is pending and file an appropriate application seeking an NOC or permission for renewal of his passport. Upon such filing, the concerned trial court shall consider the application in light of the settled legal principles and precedents and pass a reasoned oi'der as per [aw, expeditiously, preferably within four rveeks from the date of filing of such aPPlication. 10

18. With these directions, this Writ Petition is d r posed of. No order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall SD/-AHME:I } ABDULLAH KHAN ASS;I iTANT REGISTRAR- \\ //TRUE COPY// SEbTIoN oFFIcER To,

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs 2 The Regional Passport Officer, Regiohal Passport Offiur. 219, Prashant Theatre, Kummarguda, Secundbrabad, Hy 3 One CC to SRI SYED NAJMULHASSAN BAQR|, Advri 4 One CC to SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUry SOLTCI'I rNDrA IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies New Delhr. D.No.8-2-2'15 to Jerabad - 500003 ,ate [OPUC] )R GENERAL OF BIu BS HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 ORDER WP.No.29663 of 2025 ', I ) li ,:t; ( '^\ * lHE SI4 t 00 rtB 206 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS