WP/21277/2025 of Sri Vijay Kumar Badri Vs The Union of India on 13 March 2026

1. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Urder secretary, Ministry df External Affairs' Central Secretariat, New Delhi'

2. The Regional Passport officer, Regional Passport office, D'No'B-2-215 to 21 9, Kummarguda, Secunderabad-5000O3'

3. smt. Badri @ Kanuganti sruthi, w/o Badri Vrjay Kumar, D/o Muthaiah Aged 33 years, O-cc Hou-sewife, RI/o H.No. 2'5-130/1-8, Kurmawada' Janagaon Town and Dist. Respondent no. 3 is impleaded as per c.o.dt.0s.03.2026 in lA No.1/2026 (WP No.21277 ot20251. ,,i ...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 MANDATVIUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in renewing the Passport and issuing the, Passport No. A8023635 with an extension less than 3 months from the date of expiry of the previous Passport i.e., 31 .1.2026, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Law and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently request to issue the renewed Passport and reissue the fresh Passport to the Petitioner fofthwith.

,*oJ;;:rJ;T"'section 1s1 cpc r:ry that in the circumsrances stated in the 2nd Respondenr i:'ffi':il:::"n' the Hish court may be preased ro direc*he variditv or 3 vears rorrhwith pendins ffi[,T:[ffi:ff,,1"r ,n" Petitioner with a COUNSEI fOr thE PCtitiONEr: SRI GADDAI,IANUGU RAJASHEKAR counser for the *espondent No.1 & 2: sRrB.KAVrrHA 'ADAV. ^ 3[, i,:Sr?:Hm'--'^""'] RE P FoR DEpuw solrcrron dliienrAl oF rNDrA The Court made flhe following: ORDER

v"

wp_2L277_2025 NBK, J IN HIGH COUR FOR THE ST TE OF TE ANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON' BLE SRI JSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 21277 of 2025 ' 13th Ma 2$26 BETWEEN: Sri Vijay Kumar Badri S/o late Anjaiah Badri ... Petitioner AND

1. The Union of [ndia, rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, and others' ,RDER: " ResPondents The petitioner is facin-e criminal proceedings irr C.C. No.478 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Ciass, Jangaon, for the offences punishable under Section 4984, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act. It is his case that he is a software ernployee and that he got an opportunity to r,vor:k in the United States'for three years, and as his passport is not valid for that long, he applied for re-issue / renewal of passport before the 2"'t respondent-passport autltority, however, the passport authority has renewed it for only three months duration. It is his further case that on an earlier occasion, he filed W.P. No.5878 of 2025 before this Court, wherein Order dated 27.02.2025 disposer! of the writ petition by imposing certain conditions for renewal of passport and the petitioner has complied with those conditions, however, the 2"d respondent has renewed for only three months which is insuflicient durarior"r for his orrsite opportunity.

wp_21277_2025 NBK, J

2. Heard Ivtr. G. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mrs. Kavita Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deput',r Solicitor General. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is settled law that mere pendencl' of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse to issue / renew the passpoft, and the petitioner furnished explanation pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.5878 of 2025, dated 27.02.2025, and the onsite opportunity for the petitioner is for three years, and therefore the passport authority may be directed to renew it accordingly.

4. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 478 of 2021, and further there is no order fumished by t.he petitioner from the concerned criminal Court directing renewal for a llafticular period, andiherefore the impugned renewal cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It is contended that the matter is covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No32ll of 2026, dated 04.02.2026. Learned Standing Counsel, based on the written instructions dated 13.03.2026, submits that the passport authority would reconsider the petitioner's aprplication if he obtains NOC frorn the concerned Crirninal Court directing to renew tbr a parlicular duration, and if no period is specified in the NOC, then the passport authority would renew it for one year as per the Rules.

5. Having considered the respective contentions, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Courr, in W.A.No.l94 of 2026, dated 11.02.2026, by referring to Section 6(2X0 of the Passporrs Act, 1967, and GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993, and the Office Memorandurn dated i'/ .,,/ A

wp_2l277 -2O25 NBK, J \t 10.10.2019, andalso the precedent judgments in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of Indiar, and Nidhi Agarwal v. Union of India2, held as follows: {3. ln the light of the principle taid down by the Apex Gourt 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. lt is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should file an application for renewal of the passport. ln 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 1A.O1.ZOZG, the appellant is at libefty to make an application for issuance of NOC from the concerned courts within this week' lf 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 aftet hearing the parties. It is for the appellant to seek renewat 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.{993 and Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 applicable to the case on hand-

6. Admittedly, criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 478 of 202[ are pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon. Therefore, in light of the orders dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Division 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887 2 2025 SCC Online TS 1778 t (

wp_27277 .2025 NBK, J Bench in W..A.No.l94 of 2026, the petitioner is required to approach the said trial Ccurt and file appropriate application seeking No Objecrion Certificate (N OC) for renewal of passport, by furnish appropriate documents with regard t,l his specific request for extended renewal period beyond the default perio'J of one year due to pending criminal case. Upon f-rling such application ernd documents, the trial Court shall consider the same as expeditiousll' as possible, pref'erably within one week, and pass appropriate orders. Therr:after, upon the petitioner furnishing the NOC, the passport authority shall consider the same for renewal of passport of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that the NOC for issuance / renewal of passport shall not be construed as a permission to travel abroad. If the petitioner intends to travel abroa<[, he is required to make a separate application betbre the trial Court statinll the purpose and duration of travel, and the trial Court shatl consider the same on its own merits by imposing appropriate conditions, as deemed nec(,ssary, if permission is being granted. Needless to state that the trial Court shall proceed in accordance rvith law to secure the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of trial in the pending criminal proceedings, if any of the conditions so imposed while granting abroad travel permission is violated.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. KARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. The Undr:r Secretary, Ministry of Extemal Delhi, Union of lndia. , Central Secretariat, New

2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, D.No.8-2-215 to 2 1 9, Kum marguda, Secunderabad-SOOOO3. To,

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

4. One CC to SRI GADDAMANUGU RAJASHEKAR, Advocate IOPUC]

5. One CC to SRI B.KAVITHA YADAV, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. [OPUC]

6. Two CD Copies BSR M \ / t

I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312026

ORDER

WP.No.21277 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS JK3 Vlzl>e . CC TODAY B (:: \-iE ST4 , 18 ilAR 2[26 t f o L) I zo l> i