The High Court · 2025

of First Class-cum -Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. as illegal, arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural justice. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to travel Thailand and direct the Respondent No.2 to renew I l the passport, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGARAJU ALLAM Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD N" TUI{ARAMT'I V'RIT PETITIOI{ No.31575 OF 2025 ORDER: This lVrit Petition is filed with the following relief: 'to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set asicle the orders in CrI.M.P.No.28O7 of 2025 in C.C.lio.1286 ol 2022 dated 2I-08-2025 and Crl.M.P.lio.390 0f 2025 tn C.C.No. 143 of 2021 da'.ed 2 t-'O8-2025 passed by the Principal Judiciar lrtagisrate of First Class-sum- Junior Civil Jud.ge, Warangai. as illegal, arbitrary and also in violation of principles of natural justice........."

2.1. l,eamed counsel for the petitioner submits t]rat the petitioner is a passport hr.rlder rvho intends to renew his passport. However, the petitioner's request for renewal was declined by the court belorv on the ground of pendency ofa criminal case.

2.2. lt is further averred that Lhc crirninal cases registered against Jre petitir:rrr:r i- fais,: :lnd asserts that the petitioner has no crimirral ante.rdents and has maintained a good travel record. Aggrieved l.4i rhe order of the trial court declinirlg to issue a Ilo Oirjcction Certilicate (NOC) for I I I 2 renewa,I of the passport, tJ..e petitioner has approached tJlis Court seeking appropriate relief.

2.3. karned counsel further contends that the issue raised herein has already been considered by this Court in several similar petitions, wherein it has been held that refusal to issue or renew a passport solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, in the absence of a conviction, is arbitrar5r and contrary to law. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders withholding rene rvzrl of the petitioner's passport merely on the ground of pendency of a crirninal case is illegal, arbitrary, arrd violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for permission to rene'u, his passport.

3. I have carefully perused the material on recr;rd. The petitioner's application seeking issrrance of an f NOC for renewal of his passport was deci.r-.e,:. by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- .Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, on the ground that a criminal case bearing Crime No, 143 of 2021, arising out of Mamnoor Police Station, is pending against him. 3 $; In t].is context, it is necessary to clari$, that the pendency of a criminal case does rlot, ipso facto, operate as an absolute bar to renewal of a passport. The process is gov€rned by t]'e statutory framework under the Passport Act, L967, and the Government of India Notilication G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25-08. 1993.

6. Under Section 6(21(0 of the Passpor-t Act, 1967, the Passport Authority rnay refuse to issue or renew a passport if proceedings in respect of an alleged olfence are pending before a criminal court in Inciia, unless the applicalt obtains permission fro:n the court bef<rre which such proceedings are pending. '* The aforesaid l{otification G,S.R. 57O(Et creates a stahrtory exemption permitting issuance or renewal of a passport to such applicants, provided rJrey produce either (i) a No Objection Cerdficate (NOC1 cr (ii) arr order of permission from the competent court allou,ing renewal during the pendency of the crimirral case. In light of ttre above stat utcry framervork, the 8'. standard procedure for renewai of a passport in cases involving pending cirninal proceedings is as follows: 4 i) The applicant shall file a formal application before the concerned trial court seeking issuance of an NOC for renewal of the passport. ii) Upon such application, the court shall notify the prosecution and alford it an opportunity to submit objections, if any. iii) The court shall consider the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the stage of proceedings, tJle antecedents of the accused, and ttre likelihood of misuse of the passport before passing a reasoned order either granting or refusing permission. iv) Where an NOC is granted, the court nrav impose appropriate conditions, such as obtaining prior leave for travel abroad, furnishing security, or perioclic rel)orting to authorities. r,) The discretion vested in the trial court must be exercised consistent with the presumption of innocer,c,;, ensuring that denia.l of an NOC remains an exception justified only b1, potentiai obstruction to the adrninistration of justice. vi) Once the NOC or court order is produced, the Passport Authority is bound to process the renewal application in i rcco;'ri a nr:e vtith larq. 5 4r. Consequently, in every case where renewal is withheld under Section 6(2X0 of the Passport Act, the proper course for the applicant is to first seek permission from the trial court and ttrereafter approach the Passport Authority. lO. It is appropriate to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Va-g3la l(asturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI l(2O2Ol Crl. L.J. (SC) 5721, held that unless there exists a specific statutory prohibition or an adverse order of the competent court, mere pendency of a crimrnal case cannot constitute a valid ground to deny renewal or issuance of a passport. The Court emphasized that refusa-1 solely on such a ground would be arbitrary and contrary to the beneficiai interrt underlying the 1993 Notification. l[,. Similarly, this Court, in Ashith Ragr v. Union of India (W.P. No. 11927 of 2025, decided on 24.04.2025), reiterated that possession of a passport does not, bv itself, confer a right to travel abroad. as such tra',,e[ remains subject to the discretion of the crimrnal court. It was further held that while renewal of a passport cannot be refused merely due to pendency of proceedings, travel may still be regulated through conditions imposed by the court. b Therefore, unless renewal wor.rld obstruct or delay the due course of justice, the normal rule should be to perrnit renewal, subject to reasonable conditions, thereby giving t: ffect to the liberal and reformative object of the 1993 Notification. tA. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sannith Reddy Maadhadi v, Unlon of ladia and Another (W.P. No. 2422 <tf 2024, decided ot 26.02.2024), reafflrmed that pendency of a criminal case does not constitute arr absolute bar to issuance or renewal of a passport. The Court adopted a balanced approach, upholding the petitioner's constitutional right to travel abroad under r\rticle 2 I of the Constitution, while safeguarding the interests o[ juslice through undertakings and court sl4ren,isior-r. The Court accordingly directed renewal of the passport, subject to undertakings and deposits before the tdal ccurt, thereby harmonizing individual Iiberty with j udicial ovcrsight during pendenry of criminal proceedings. 1S ln the present case, since the petitioner's request for renew-al was declined by the court below solely on the ground of penclencl, of criminal proceedings, this Court is of the considered vi,:w, that the impugned order is not'irl- 7 conformity with the settled legal position. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. .rft$ In effect, the Crl.u.F. No. 2807 of 2025 in c.C. l{o. 1286 of 2O22 and Crl.M.P. No. 39O of 2o25 in C.C. No. 143 of 2O2l are restored to the frle for fresh consideration by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The trial court shall consider tJle applications in light of the legal principles and precedents discussed above and pass a reasoned order in accordance u,ith lau,, expediriously, preferably within four weeks from the date of fiiing of such applications. lS. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending rn the Petition, shall stand closed. \ To //TRUE COPY// Sd/- S, MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Junior Civil Judge' Warangal.

2. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs' New Delhi' 1r rhe Reoional Passport officer' Hyderabad' - - K;r;;"sJJJ, secuncieraoad-sOO0O3 Telangana State' 4. One CC to SRI NAGARAJU ALLAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia D No'8-2-215 to 219' IoPUCI

6. Two CD CoPies PMK/MP T@ I I HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 I ORDER WP.No.31575 of 2025 c TATE .$ ii. o 01 ttB t[?t * * E<\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )t<s a+f,J",e 6)