JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Ms. D. Vasavi Ratna Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Alekhya Tadasina, learned Central Government Counsel for respondents 1 & 2, and learned GP for Home for respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for the following relief: 'to issue appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in declining to renew the petitioner's passport bearing No.K6573608 pursuant to his application No.VS1074023092322 dt.10.03.2022 even after submitting explanation to the letter dt. 27.09.2022, as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to renew the petitioner's passport without being influenced by any pendency of case or crime and pass such order...' 3. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the 2nd respondent-the Regional Passport Office, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam to renew the petitioner's passport without being influenced by any pendency of case or crime against him. 4. The petitioner was issued Passport bearing No.K6573608, dated 23.07.2012 by the 2nd respondent valid upto 27.07.2022. The petitioner submitted an application bearing No.VS1074023092322, dated 10.03.2022 for renewal of the passport - normal and as the application was kept pending, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22254 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court on 07.09.2022 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of his passport without raising any objection relating to the pendency of Cr.No.535/2020 of Bheemili Police Station, Visakhapatnam. This Court held that Section 6 (2) (f) would arise only when there is a pending proceeding before the criminal Court after cognizance is taken. This Court observed that as only Cr.No.535/2020 of Bheemili Police Station, Visakhapatnam was registered against the petitioner along with others under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and was under investigation, it would have to be held that there was no pending criminal proceeding before the Court. 5. On submission of the copy of the order dated 07.09.2022, the 2nd respondent processed the application, upon which the police submitted an adverse police report as under: 'Cr.No.535/2020 u/s.420, 468, 471, 120(b) IPC of Bheemilipatnam P.S., Visakhapatnam city. 5. On submission of the copy of the order dated 07.09.2022, the 2nd respondent processed the application, upon which the police submitted an adverse police report as under: 'Cr.No.535/2020 u/s.420, 468, 471, 120(b) IPC of Bheemilipatnam P.S., Visakhapatnam city. The case pending completion of investigation i.e., U.I. and the reason for UI is available with the Inspector of Police, Bheemilipatnam police station of Visakhapatnam city Cr.No.335/2019 U/s.420, 468, 471, r/w.120(b) IPC of Visakhapatnam III Town P.S. and it is pending in the Court of Honourable ACMM, VSP vide CC No.4008/2021 and the applicant is figured as A1.' 6. Basing on the police report, the 2nd respondent issued letter - notice vide No.SCN/313361403/22, dated 20.09.2022 to submit suitable explanation regarding the circumstances under which the petitioner had suppressed the material information in the passport application. Another notice dated 27.09.2022 was also served to the petitioner-applicant requiring clarification that as per the police verification report dated 17.09.2022, two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, (1) Cr.No.535/2020 at Bheemilipatnam Police Station and (2) Cr.No.335/2019 at III Town PS and pending in the Court of ACMM, Visakhapatnam vide CC.No.4008/2021, also informing the petitioner that the order of this Court 07.09.2022 pertains to Cr.No.535/2020 only and consequently, requiring the petitioner to furnish the Court acquittal order or No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending along with GSR 570 (E) undertaking regarding Cr.No.335/2019. 7. The petitioner submitted reply dated 15.10.2022 (Ex.P2), inter alia, stating that he had forgotten about the pendency of the FIR No.335/2019 in III Town PS and also could not remember pendency of CC.No.4008/2021 in the Court of ACMM, Visakhapatnam arising out of Cr.No.335/2019. 8. Along with the reply, the petitioner is said to have submitted the requisite undertaking. However, any order of the Court concerned in terms of GSR 570 (E), dated 25.08.1993 was not submitted. 9. It is admitted to the petitioner in para-7 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the petitioner and his family members obtained loans from bank and as they failed to repay the loan amount FIR No.335/2019 was registered including against the petitioner. 9. It is admitted to the petitioner in para-7 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the petitioner and his family members obtained loans from bank and as they failed to repay the loan amount FIR No.335/2019 was registered including against the petitioner. The criminal case vide CC.No.4006/2021 pending in the Court of ACMM, Visakhapatnam arising out of Cr.No.335/2019 is also admitted to the petitioner, though as submitted in the reply affidavit in para-4 thereof, the correct criminal case number is CC.4006/2021 and not CC.No.4008/2021 mentioned in the notice/letter issued by the 2nd respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere pendency of the criminal case in Court for trial cannot be a ground to refuse renewal of the passport. 11. He has placed reliance in the following judgments; 1) Vangala Kastruri Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation IA.52346/2021 in Crl.A.No.1343/2017, SC decided on 27.09.2021 2) Asutosh Amrit Patnaik v. State of Orissa WP(c)No.4834 of 2022, Orissa HC at Cuttack, decided on 23.03.2022 3) Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC Online Bom 1992. 12. Ms. Alekhya Tadasina, learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the competent authority can refuse the passport services to the petitioner under Section 5 (2) (c) of the Passports Act 1967 to be read with Section 6 (2) (f) in view of the pendency of the criminal cases in the Court concerned. She submitted that the passport authorities can consider the reissue application of the petitioner if the petitioner submits the acquittal order from the Court concerned or obtain permission from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending. 13. Admittedly, in the earlier writ petition W.P.No.22254 of 2022, wherein the direction was given to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of the passport without raising any objection relating to the pendency of Cr.No.535/2020 in Bhimilipatnam PS, Visakhapatnam, the fact of pendency of CC.No.4006/2021 (or CC.No.4008/2021 whatever may be the correct number), arising out of Cr.No.335/2019 of III Town PS, on the file of Court of ACMM, Visakhapatnam, was not mentioned as is also evident from the reading of the judgment (Ex.P3). 14. 14. The same issue, with respect to the refusal or withholding of renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal case for trial in criminal Court, was also involved in W.P.No.1392 of 2023 and batch petitions and on consideration of the various judgments cited before this Court, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vangala Kastruri Rangacharyulu (supra). Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala (supra) and Asutosh Amrit Patnaik (supra), as relied upon in the present case, this Court vide judgment in WP.Nos.1392 & 2896 of 2023, & 38869 of 2022, delivered today, has held as under: 'To sum up, this Court holds that; (i) 'Issue' of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes 'renewal' of the passport as well; (ii) While considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for 'the first time', provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well; (iii) In the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfillment of the condition under the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6; (iv) In a case where clause (f) of Section 6 (2) is attracted, the holder of the passport, for its renewal, will have to produce an order from the Court concerned, where the proceedings against him are pending trial in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, permitting him to depart from India; (v) The notification dated 25.08.1993 applies to the citizen applicants for renewal of the passport even if already departed from India under the passport of which renewal is sought. (vi) On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial; (vii) Condition (d) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 is an additional requirement and is not in substitution of the requirement from those citizen/applicants who have to produce an order of the Court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, permitting him to depart from India. 15. This Court disposed of W.P.Nos.1392 & 2896 of 2023 & 38869 of 2022, by passing the following order, in the following terms: (a) The prayer of writ petitioners seeking direction to the respondent passport authorities to renew the passport without insisting on compliance with the notification dated 25.08.1993, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case in the Court concerned for trial, is rejected. (b) A direction is issued to the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the cases of the petitioners covered under clause (f) of Section 6 (2) of the Passports Act, for renewal of the passport, on production of the order from the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending for trial. (c) On production of an order from the concerned Court, as aforesaid, the application for renewal shall not be rejected on the ground of mere pendency of the criminal case in Court, but subject to compliance of other requirements under notification dated 25.08.1993. (d) If the petitioner approaches the concerned Court where the criminal case is pending trial, for an order, seeking No Objection Certificate / Permission to depart from India or to continue to his departing from India, with respect to those petitioners, who already departed under the passport, the renewal of which is requested, their applications would be considered by the concerned Court, as per law, taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances of their respective cases and appropriate orders shall be passed according to law. (e) The judgment in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, shall be considered in the correct perspective, as discussed in this judgment, by the concerned Court. (f) If there is an additional ground, under any other clause of Section 6 (2), i.e., other than clause (f), the same shall be considered independent of the directions issued in these writ petitions. (f) If there is an additional ground, under any other clause of Section 6 (2), i.e., other than clause (f), the same shall be considered independent of the directions issued in these writ petitions. (g) The petitioner of W.P.No.2896 of 2023 is granted liberty to approach the Court concerned afresh. 16. The present writ petition is also disposed of with the same directions as in para-16 (a) to (f) supra. 17. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.