WP/6285/2026 of Surisetty Eswaraiah Vs The Union of India on 27 February 2026

ORDER:

This Writ petition is filed to declarc thc action of' thc respondents in rejecting the petitioner's application for issuance of passport uide Application No. HYB076 17938:1826 dirlcd O2.O L .2026, on the ground that a criminal case in Crime

2. Heard Sri Thota Yakaiah, learncd counscl for [h<r pcLiLiont:r anrl No.153/2024 under Sections 447,427,3'79 read rvith i]11 IPC of' Geesukonda Police Station, Warangal District, 1S pen clin g, AS iliegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and in violation of the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and consequently to dircct thc respondents lo process the said application and issue a passporl to Lhe petitioner Sri P. Shashidhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Ce ntral Governrncnt, for the respondents.

3. Whcn the matLcr is Laken up lor hearing, l(rr rned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ I etition is squarery covered by thc orcler lasscd by :his court in w.p.No.4 i 97 ol 2026, daLed 16.02.2026 and there forc, thc sarnc order may be J,i s5sd in this ra,rit petition as q'ell. 'l'hr: opcrativc portion of the saicl orde.cads as under: "5. It is relevant lo note that the Governme r t <lf India rssucd an Officc Memorandum datcd , r claril\,ing rhat a "No Objecrion Ccrtificrr rssuccl b1. a CourL Lakes precedence 'adverse' police reporL (provided tht: detil pohce rcport and the applicant,s undertak r and, in such instances, the passport Of overrule tl-ie adversc report with written I.-urther, if the derails in the police \i Report and the underlaking are at var.i applicant may bc rcquired to provide cla r and submit a rcvised NOC. if an appli criminal proceedings pending before severe the_r, are aclvised l.o obtain an NOC cr>nccrncd Courts. Further, Lhc order of thc to bc cxamined along with the LLr r submrrr.d l11 rlrc ,_,ppli< int, as wcll as ordcrs ol'hr: Co u rt. ).10.2019 c" (NOC) over an Is in the .g match) icer may rpproval. rification nce, the il'ications :ant has lCourts, lrom all Court is lertaking ry other

6. At tl-ris juncLure, iL is also relevant to rr:.:r to the judgment ol a coordinale Bcnch o[ this ]ourt in Thirumani Nagaraju v. The Union < f India (W.P.No.31665 of 2O2S (Telangana High Court), observed as lollou.s: ''7.T'he Notification G.S.R. 570(E) can,es, s1 a statutory excmption, permitting the isst-Lz r ce or rencwal o[ a passport to such applicar rs, provided they produce eitl,rer

(i) a No Objection Certihcate (NOC) or (ii m ordcr i I permission t}om Ltre competcnt co trt alkru,tng renewal during the pendency of I re criminal casc. " 8.. ln light ol thc above statu ( ry schcme, thc standard proccdure for ; individual facing _pending "ii-ir-rr1 proceedir 3s to seek renewal of passport is as foliows:

i) 'l'hc applicant rrrust hle a [or:r al application before the concerned trial ccr rt seeking issualce of an NOC for renewal of t re passport.

ii) Upon such application, the court shall notify the prosecution and afford it an opportunity to submil- objections, if any.

iii) Upon considering thc nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the stage of proceedings, thc antecedcnts of tl-rc accu scd. and rhc Iikelihood of misuse of thc passport, the court shall pass a reasoncd orcler either granting or dcnying permission. irl Whcre an NOC is granted, the cou rt may rmposc appropnate conditions, such as seeking prior leave for travel abroad, furnishing security, or pcriodic reporting to authorities.

v) The discretion vested in the trial court must be exercised consistent with the presumpt.ion of innoccncc, cnsuring that denral of an NOC remains an exception justilied only by potentral obstrucl ion to thc administrat;on of ju s ticc.

vi) Once the NOC or court order is produccd, the Passport Authority is bound to proccss the rencn,erl application in accordancc with lau'.

14. [n thc prcsenl casc, since the petitioncr's requesr lor rener,val o[ passport lvas withheld by the llegionat Passport Ofhcer (RPO) on the ground of pendency ol criminal procccdings, the appropriate cour-se available to the petitioner was to approach the concerned trial court and scek leave or obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for reneu,a] of the passport. Instead, the pctitroner has directl,r, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court undcr Articlc 226 of the Constitution of India, citing urgcnc_\. and asserting that he has no criminal antecedents and has never misused his passport. However, apart from such gencral avermcntS, thc pctrtioncr has r)ot demonstrated the cdstcnce of any cxccptional circumstanccs warranting intcrlerence by this Court in cxercisc ol its cxtraordinary jurisdicrion.

15. [n vrcw of thc lorcgoing discussion and thc statutory framework, this Court is of thc considercd opinior-r that, in the absence oI any exceptional contingencies, the petitioncr shall first approach the trial court belore which the crrmina.l case is pending arrd file an appropriate applicatron sceking an NOC or permission for renewal o[ his passport. Upon such filing, the concerned trial court shall consider the application in Iight of the settled legal principles and judicia.l p.recedents, arrd pass a reasoned order in accorda.rrce with law, expeditiously and preferably within four weeks from the datc of filing ol such application.,'

7. In the instant case, there is nc material placetl on rccord to shou, that the petitiorr ,r filed ar-t applic:aLron bcfbrc thc trial Court seeki rq a ,,No Objccrion CcrLiflcatc' for obtaining of p,t ;sport. In vrcr,,,of the pending criminal proccedingi r gainst thc lrctitioner in S.C.No.24U of 2022 on il-r,, ile of ,hc Scnior Civrl J udgc, Suryapet, this Cour decms rr appropriate Lo dircct the petitioncr to ap: .oach th(l CourL ttf Lhc Scnior Civit Judge, Suryapcr. Lnd makc an appropriatc application seeking a,,Nc CbiccLion Certificate" for obtair-ring passport. Upon I ling such application. the lear;red trial Court shill ,:<, rsiJer the samc and pass appropriatc orders exp < ditiously, prefcra bly wiLhrn one rveek from th( date of application. Upon furnishing the NO(] bv the pctitioncr, the passport auLhority shall ccr sider thc samc lbr issuancc of passport in accori z ncc with la w.

8. Ir is madc clcar rhat thc NOC rhir issucrl br thc trizrl Court for obtaining pasr; not bc construcd as er permission to travel : crasc the petitioner intends to travcl abro. pt'ncI'ncr, of criminal procccdings, the shall lile a separatc application seeking p,r to travel abroad, by specifying the duration hc intends to travel abroad, and the triaj Cr consider the application on its own nt imposing appropriate conditions in accord: la'"v; and the trial Court shall proceed in a: vvith lau, to securc the presencc of the pe casc of violation o[ any of thc conditions sr:r ',r,lr ilc qranting arbroad travci pcrmission.

9. Ac.'ord ingly, rhc u,rit pcrition is clr; toscd of r.vit h thc above dircctions. No costs. Misc r llancous petitions, il any, pending shall stand closed I-carncr! Standing Couns<:l lor Lhc rcspondc-nts has no objcct iorr ,( m:ry I'c rort shall rroad. In C during retitioner rmission or u,hich urt shall :rits, by ncc q,ith :ordance :ioner in imposed I

5. Accordingly, in terms of the order passcd br this Court in W.P.No.4597 ol 2026, dated 16.02.2026, and for the ro .sons alikc, this Writ PetiLion is clisposcd of dirct:ting the pctitioncr t I approach the jurisdictional crirnir-ral / Court, and make an appropr ate application seeking a "No objection certificate" (Noc) for issuance of passport. Upon liling such application, the learned trial court shall consider the same and pass appropriatc ordcrs cxpcditiously, prcfcrably *,j1hin onc q,cck from the datc ol application. Upon furnishtng the NOC by thc pctitjoner, the passport authority shall considcr the same for issuance of passport in accordance with law_

lt is made clear that the Noc that may be issued by the trial court for obtaining passport shall not be construecl as a permission to kavel abroad. In case the petitioner intencls to travel abroad during pendcncl, of criminal proceedings. thc pt:Lirioner shair rilc a se paratc ,ppliczrti.n seeking permission to travcr abroad, by specifying thc duraLion for u,hich he intcnds to travel abr.ad, and the triar court shall consider the appiication on i[s own merits, by imposing appropriate concliLions in accordance with lau,; and the trial Court shall proceed in accordance *ith law to secure the prcsence of the petitioner in case of violation of any of the conditions so imposed white granting abroad Lravel pcrmlssron. No cosLs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, sirall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// ' sD/- T. sRrDEV' SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

The Under Secretary, Ministry of Extemal Affairs, The Union of lndia, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. The Regional passport officer, Regional Passport Office, 8-2-215 to 219, Near Prashanth Theatre Kummarguda, Secunderabad One CC to SRI THOTA YAKAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P. SHASHIDHAR REDDY, SC for CENTRAL GOW. IOPUC] One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] Two CD Copies Ot\l To, l \

HIGH COURT DATED:2710212026 CC TODAY : SIAIE a /'-. | / ., t -., ,lr r:) ,.; j' :.'.. j ,l I ftB ?u6 I

ORDER

WP.No.6285 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS D