The High Court · 2025

Counsel for'the Petitioner: SRI ARIGELA MAHESH Counsel for the Respondents : SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER , 7 1 THE HON'BLE SRI t,USTICE N. TUITARAMJI WRIT PEIITION No.31665 OF 2O25 ORDTR This Writ Petition is filed with the following relieft "pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS against the 2nd respondent in refusini to reissue / renew the passport of the petitioner by issuing the impugned notice dated L7-O9-2O25 on, account of pendency of the Cr.No.553l2O21 U/s 186,353,506,147 r/w 749 IPC of Medipally PS. This case is under PT vide CC.No. LOO87 /2021 at IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Recidy District at LB Nagar as the same is illegal arbitrary eurd violative of Article 14, l9and 2l of the constitution of India and the against the principles of natural justice eurd consequently set aside the order dated l7-O9-2O25 vide letter reference no. OBJ/1050097i33/25and direct the Respondent No.2 to reissue/ ,..r"* th" passport vide P26 19543........."

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition has been instituted, being aggrieved by the communication dated 17 .O9.2O25 issued by respondent No.2-the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), l !- \-- \j 2 whereby the petitioner's request for renewal of his passport was withheld on the ground of pendency of a crirninal case. 2-2. It is further submitted that this Court, 'nvhile dealing with an analogous issue in Ashith Ragi u. Un,ion of India, represented bg tlrc Secretary to Gouernment, Ministry of Erternal Affairs, Neu Delhi (W.P. No. 11927 of 2025, decided an 24.04.20251" categorically held ttrat refusal to issue or renerv\,'a passport solely on the groun<l of pendency of a criminal case, in the absence of conviction, is arbitrary and contrary to law. Accordingly, it is contended that the action of respondent No.2/RPO in withholding renewal of the petitioner's passport merely on the grouncl ofpendency of crimin:rl proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 2t of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to renew his passport rn accorda-nce with Iaw. a. I have carefully perused the material on record. \ +- The petitioner's appiication for reneu,al of passport I ."r,as withh,:lcl by'respondernt No.2/RPO on the ground that a criminal case, bearing Crime No. 553 of 2021. is pending W -\ 3 against him before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, arising out of Medipally Police Station.

5. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that though the pendency of a crimina-l case does not zpso facto operate as an absolute bar to renewal of a passport, the process is governed by the statutory framework under the Passport Act, 1967, and the Government of India Notification G.S.R. 57O(E) dated 25.08. 1993.

6. Uncler Section 6t2l(9 of the Passport Act, 1967, tl:,e Passport Authority may refuse to issue or renew a passport if proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court in India, unless the applicant obtains permission from the court where such prgceedings are pending. 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. I \--I - .\ 4 A In light of the above statutory scheme, the standard procedure for an individual 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. i0 Upon such application, the court shrall notify the prosecution and afiord it an opportunity to submit objections, if any. iii) Upon r:onsidering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the stage of proceedings, the antecedents of tJ:e accused, and the tikelihood of misuse of the paJsport, the court shall pass a reasoned order either granting or denying permission. : it) Where an NOC is granteci, the court.may impose appropriate conditions, such as seeking prior leave for travel abroad, furnishing security, or periodic reporting to authorities.. v) The discretion vested in the trial court mu.st be exercised consistent with the presumption of innocence, ensuring \ \ ry,/l I 5 that d.enial of an NOC remains an exception justified only by potential obstruction to the administration of justice. vi) Once the NOC or court ord.er is produced, the Passport Authority is bound to process the renewal application in accordance with law. q'. Consequently, in every case where reneu'al is withheld under Section 6{21(f), the proper course for the applicant is first to seek permission from the trial court and only thereafter approach the Passport Authority B. At this juncture it is appropriate'to note that the Honble Supreme Court, in Vangata Kastui Rangacharyulu u. CBIIQO2O) Crl. L.J. (SC) 5721, affirmed that unless there exists a specific statutory prohibition or an adverse order of the competent court, mere pendency of a crirfiinal case cannot constitute a valid ground'to deny renewal or issuance of a passport. The Court emphasized that refusal solely on such grounds would be arbitrary an{ contrary to the beneficial object of the 1993 Notification- l-t . Similarly, this Court in Ashith Ragi u. Union of India (w.P. No. 1 lg27 of 2025, decided on 24.04.2025) reiterated I ; ..;1. iilli&;et.; \- l - 6 that possession of a passport does not, by itself, entitle the holder to travel abroad, as the power to imltose travel restrictions lies with the criminal court. Thus, while renew-al of a passport cannot be refused solely due to the pendency 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 justice, the normal rule shoulcl tre 1-o $ermit- rc;newal, subject to reasonable conditionrs, thereby upholding the liberal and reforrnative intent unrleriying the 1993 Notification. le. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sannith t Reddy Mandhadi u. Union of India and another (W.P. No. 2422 of 2024, decided on 26.02.2024) held thert 'lhe Court reaffirmecl that t-he mere pendency of a crirninal case cannot operate as an absolute bar to issuancO or renewal of a passport. Instead, the Court adopted a balanced approach, ensuring protection of the petitioner's constitutional right to t.rar;el (Article 271, and, safeguard.ing the interests of justice by requiring court sultelvision and * undertakings. Further directed that the passport U. I 7 7 renewed subject to undertakings and deposit before the trial court, the court harmonized individual riberty with the judiciai control necessar5r during pendency of crimirral proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the Hon,bre supreme {t' court in whirlpoor corporation u" Registrar of T?ad.emarks, Mumbai and o*ers [(r99g) 8 scc lJ authoritatively held that although the High court normalry does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India when an effective and efficacious arternative remedy is available, the existence of such remedy is not an absorute bar. The court derineated trrree werl-reco gmzed,exceptions wherein rvrit jurisdiction may stil be exercised: (i) whe'e the writ is filed for enforcement of fundqmentar rights; or (ii) where there has been violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholy without jurisdiction, or the vires of an Act is challenged. I &fu". '.rX 8 l+ In t.he present case, since the petitioner's request for renewal clf passport uras withheld by the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) on the ground of pendenc'y of criminal proceedings, the appropriate course available to the petitioner was to approach the concerned trial court and seek leave or obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for renewal c,f the passport. instead, the petitioner has directly invoked the u,rit jurisdiction of this Court uncler Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing urgency and asserting that he has no crimina-l antecedents and has never misused his passport. However, apart from such general avermentrs, the petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of any exceptional circumstances r*arranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinarJr jurisdiction.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion and fhe statutory framework, this Court. is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any exceptional contingencies, thr: petitioner shall first approach the trial court before which the \ t criminal case is pending and lile an appropriate apprication seeking an Noc or permission fbr renewal of his passport. I Uponsuchfiling,theconcernedtrialcourtshallconsider theapplicationinl.ightofthesettledlegalprinciplesand judicial precedents, and pass a reasoned order in accord.ance with law, expeditiously and preferably within four weeks from the date of frling of such application' fi.withthesed.irections,t}risWritPetitionisdisposed of. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shzill stand clo:;ed /TRUE COPY// t sd,-c.DEEPll(4 ANf REGISTRAR ASSIST qtkorFrcER SE " 1 $?urni$tro$X*mnffi;f H::

2. The Regiot Kummagut 3. One CC to 4- One CC to INDIA, Ad' 5. two CD CoPies SA PMK W .t HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 I ORDER WP.No.31665 of 2025 IyrE sIA t< I 2 0 ll0l, ?m glATc vttto DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT GOSTS. 4 \\