WP/14429/2026 of KOMMAREDDY PRAVALIKA Vs The Union of India on 29 April 2026

ORDER:

the action of resPondent The Writ Petition is hled challengrng passport authorities in not reissuing/renewing the passport uideFlleNo'HYFO764 11646026' dated 17 '02' ground of pendency of a criminal case'

2. HeardSriB.SudhakarReddy,learnedcounselforthe petitioner's 2026, onttre petitioner and Sri N' Bhujanga Rao' learned' Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraigrrment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground I I I i i reissuance/renewa-l of passport. He relies on the is Court in W.p.No.321 7 of 2026, dated 04.O2.2O26. 4' Learned DepuQz Soricitor Genera-l of India for the respondents submits that crimina-l case is pending against the pedtioner rzde Cr.No. I gg of 202 I urrder Sections 42O, 306 read with 34 IpC before the Gajwel police Station. He, by referring to Office Memoraldum dated 10.10.20i9 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 authorit5z for considering reissuance /renewal of passport, In the instant case, the petitioner has not furnished Noc/permission from the trial Court and therefore there is no illegality ln refusing to rerssue/renew the passport.

5. This court has care ruty 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 reissuance/renewal it is relevant to refer to the for denia-l of judgment of th :i of passport. In this orders Passed bY the Connectlon, )

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 194 of 2026, dated 17.02.2026, wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows: "13. tn the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court concerning the interpretation of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Oflice 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 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 authorit5r 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 parlies. It ii for the appellant to seek renewal of passport based upon such NOC before the Regional passport Authority. Needless to say, the Regional passport Authorigr would consider the requesiof extension in accordance with law i.e., the passports Act, 1967, gSR s7o(E) dated 25.o8.199a and ' Ofhce Memorandum dated 10.10.20t9 applicabie 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 concemed trial Court seeking a .No Objection reissuance/renewal of passport. In view of the Certifrcate" for 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 reissualce/renewal of passport. Upon hling such application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the sarne 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 authorit5r shall consider the same for reissuing/ renewing of passport in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that the NOC that may be issued by the concerned trial Court for reissuance/renewal 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 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 trial Court sha-ll Proceed in law. Needless to mention that the accorda,ce with raw to secure the presence of the petitioner in case of violation of anv of the conditions so imposed while granting abroad travel Permission' J.J

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendi.rg "traly'strnd closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/.C. DEEPIKA SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTlON OFFICER To,

1. The Secretary Mihistry of External Affairs Pati laH use Government of lndia The Union of lndia, New Delhi 2- The Regional Passport Officer, Passport Office D o.8-2-215 to 219 Adjacent to Prashanth Theatre Kummaraguda Secunderabad-500003.

3. One CC to Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy And Neeraja Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Advocate loPUcI

5. Two CD Copies TJ BSd

I HIGH COURT DATED: 2910412026 CC TODAY ( HE SIE

,.) 7':-' C.

ORDER

WP.No.14429 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .,) ' l:). \.'-* i-- -....-i, + -.'/ !>":o^,.-.,;(9,.'/ -- -..,-,-,t: ,- -.I- \:.::--:: r'' |] 6 HAI zt]?ll I \t''oA<\r'