WP/17074/2026 of Gurram Laxma Reddy Vs The Government of India on 4 June 2026

ORDER:

The petitioner made an application to the respondent-Passport authority seeking renewal of the passport; however, the passport authority refused to renew the same on the ground that the police verification revealed adverse report stating that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner in Cr.No.598 of 2023 of Nacharam police station for the offence under sections 171-B read with Section 171-E, 188 IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos. I and 2. Perused the record'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground .- for denial of passport. Therefore, he seeks renewal of the passport of the petitioner without reference to the pendency of criminal case.

4. Learned Standit-rg Counsel for Central Government relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.194 of 2026, dated 77.02.2O26. Further, by referring to Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued b1, the Ministry of External Affairs, submits that in vieu'of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner is required to approach the concerned trial Court for necessary 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC)/permission to obtain passport, and thereafter, furnish the same before the passport authority for considering renewal 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.

5. Having considered the respective submissions, at the outset, it is settled la'a, that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse renewal of passport. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 194 of 2026, dated 17.O2.2026, wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows: "13. In the light of t].e principle laid dovm by the Apex Court concerning the interpretation of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and OIIice Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, we are of the considered view that t]re appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where crirninal cases are pending agarnst him. It is upon issuance of NOC

5,: l tl"rat the appellalt should file an application. for renewa-l of tiri passport. In case tJ.e courts prescribe a period for wtrich the passport is to be

- issued, .the passport authority should honour that period' b*r"^.t.i"", if it does not stipulate any period, the notifrcation provides default rules, including issuance for a shoiter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases."

14. Since the passport of the appellant is going to expire on 2a.or.2o26, the appellant- is- at liberty.to -rk" ,rr application for issuance of NOC from the concerned -"or.t" *ithitt this week' If such an application is made before the learned courts, the feained courts would endeavour to take it up expeditiously, preferably within a week, and pass appropriate -orders aJtei hearing the parlies lt- is for thi appellant to seek renewal of passport based upon such'itoC before the Regional Passport Authority' Needless to say, the Regional Passport Authority would consider the request of extension in accordance with 1aw 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 hald'"

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 obtaining of passport' In view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner Cr.No.598 of 2023 of Nacharam Police station and the same was numberedasC.C.No.3lTof2024onthefileofspecialJudicia] Magistrate of First Class-cum-Excise Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the said trial Court and make an aPpropriate application seeking a T.{o Objection Cerlificate' for renewal of passport. Upon filing such application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within one week - from the date of filing of such application. Upon furnishing the NOC by the petitioner, the passport authority shall consider the same for reissuing/ renewing of passports in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that the NOC that may be issued by the trial Court to the petitioner for obtaining passport shall not be construed as a permission to travel abroad. In case the petitioner intends to travel abroad during pendency of criminal proceedings, the petitioner shall file a separate application seeking permission to travel abroad, by specifying the duration of travel, and the trial Court shall consider such application on its own merits, by imposing appropriate conditions in accordarce with law. Needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law to secure the presence of the petitioner in case of violation of any of the conditions so imposed while granting abroad travel permission.

8. With the above said directions, the Writ petition stands disposed of. There sha-ll be no order as to cosrs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand ciosed. S SD/-T. SRIDEVI NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// lsrA \ SECTION OFFICER '.t' '1. The Secretary, Government of lndia, Ministry of External Affairs, External Affiars, New Delhi 2 The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Kummariguda' Secunderabad. 3 One CC to SRl. MOHD MUMTAZ PASHA Advocate [OPUC] To, {

g-!GE7

4. One CC to SRt.

5. Two CD Copies N BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor Generat of tndia [OpUC] BM BS l^M

HIGH COURT DATED: 04106t2026

ORDER

WP.No.17074 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS VACATION COURT @,,, \ (" \o \,$