Telangana High Court
WP/16868/2026 of Sri Santosh Kumar Kodicharla Vs Union of India on 29 May 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 16868 oF 2026 Between: Sri Santosh Kumar Kodicharla, S/o Sri Nagaiah
[ 33001
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 16868 oF 2026
Between:
Sri Santosh Kumar Kodicharla, S/o Sri Nagaiah Kodicharla, Aged about 44
years, Occ Pvt Employee, Rio H. No. 12-7-6, Muakipet, Moosapet, Medchal, Telangana - 500018
...PETITIONER
AND
1. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary Ministry of External Affairs Jawaharlal Nehru Bhavan 23-D, Janapath, New Delhi-1 10011
2. The Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, D.No. 8-2-215 to 219 Near Prashant Theatre, Kummarguda Secunderabad-500003
.,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS by declaring the action on the part of the respondent Passport Authorities in orally refusing to issue passport on 15-5-2026 and orally instructed to obtain permission of the cou( and in not considering the Application of the Petitioner vide Application No. 1066296398026 dt.27.01.2026 and in not lssuing the Passport to the Petitioner on the ground of the pendency of Criminal Case against the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violative of well settled principles of law and also the Provisions and Rules of the Passports Act and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent-passport Authorities to lssue Passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2026
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 direct the Respondent / Passport Authorities to lssue Passport to the Petitioner for a period of 10 years.
counsel for the Petitioner: sRl. KTRAN REDDY MALLARAPU
Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABN)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A
UIRIT PETITION No.16a68 of 2026
Dated: 29.os.2026
Between:
Sri Santosh Kumar Kodicharla
Petitioner
AND
Union of India & another
...Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
L. This writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondent Passport Authorities in orally refusing to issue passport on 15.05.2026 and orally instructed to obtain permission of the Court and in not considering the application of the petitioner vide Application No.1066296398O26, dated 27.01.2026 and in not issuing the passport to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to issue passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years.
2. Heard Mr.M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the respondents.
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/renewal of passport. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.p.No.32l I of 2026, dated 04.O2.2026.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the respondents submits that criminal case is pending against the petitioner uide S.C.No.42 of 2022, on the file of learned Speciai Judge for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar. Learned counsel, 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/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 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'lcle Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.l94 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 renewal 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 renewal 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 Oflice 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 seiking "No Objection Certificate" for issuance of passport. In view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the concerned trial Court and make an appropriate application seeking "No Objection Certificate" for issuance of passport. Upon filitg Fuch application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within one week from the date of fiting of such application. Upon furnishing the NOC by the petitioner, the passport authority shal1 consider the same for issuing passport in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that the NOC that may be issued by the concerned trial Court for issuance of passport shall not be construed as a permission by the petitioner to travel abroad. In case the petitioner intends to travel abroad during pendency of criminal proceedings, the petitioner shall frle a separate application seeking permission to travel abroad by speci$,ing the duration of travel and the trial Court shall consider such application on its own merits by imposing appropriate conditions in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed in accordanc-e,v''ith 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Exte Bhavan 23-D, Janapath, New Delhi-1 1001 1 IA irs Jawaharlal Nehru
2. The Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, D.No. 8_2_215 to 219 Near Prashant Theatre, Kummarguda Secunderabad_500003
3. One CC to SRl. KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advocate tOpUCI
4. One CC to SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Soticitor General of lndia IoPUCI
5. Two CD Copies DAN BS
HIGH COURT DATED: 2910512026
ORDER
WP.No.16868 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS VACATION COURT ,.rt'-o\ ,i1s tg L
?* a Lr.t .-t.,, \, * k\ li ii !a ,i Mc \\ c H \ J hu