WP/14883/2026 of Mogulaiah Gattumedi Vs The Union of India, on 4 May 2026

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is liled challenging the action of respondent passport authorities in not issuing the petitioner's passport uide application No.HYJ0664M843226, dated 16.02.2026, on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.

2. Heard Sri N. Manik Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents.

3. lrarned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground I Dated: o4.05.2o26

I for denial of passport. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.32 17 of 2026, dated 04.02.2026.

4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents, submits that a criminal case is-pending against the petitioner r,'rde c.c.No.rsO of 2022 before the rearned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad. He, by referring to Oflice Memorandum dated 10.10.2o19 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 necessar5r NOC/permission to obtain passport, and thereafter furnish the same before the passport authority for considering issuance 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.

This court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the materia-l available on record. It is settled law that mere pendency of crimina_l proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance of passport. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Honble Division Bench i

It' / 1, of this Court in W.A.No. 194 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 conceming the interpretation of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Oflice Memorandum dated 1O.10.2O19, we are of the considered view that the appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial iourts where criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should hle 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 noLification 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, cSR 57O(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Office Memorandum dated 1O. 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 seeking a "No Objection Certihcate" 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 a'No Objection Certihcate" for issuance of passport. Upon filing such application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate brders 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 issuance of passport in accordance with law. 7 . It is made clear that the NOC that may be issued by the trial Court to the petitioner for issuance of passport sha.ll 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 accordance 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 rriolation of any of the conditions so imposed while granting abroad travel permission.

w

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/-MOHD.!SMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, central secretariat, The union of lndia, New Delhi.

2. The Regional passport officer, Head Post Office, 4-2-17512,Opp- Watertank, Old LIG Colony, Vikarabad, Telangana State. PIN- 501101

3. One CC to SRI N MANIK RAO, Advocate IOPUCI

4. One CC to SRI N BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies PVL o LS T

(

, HIGH COURT DATED: 0410512026 CC.TODAY O 8 TAI ?flT ?, + ltiE ST4 ( * ;tF (! C O.)

ORDER

WP.No.14883 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

1. r,t-c. \.:, - l.:r.: r I