ORDER : N. Tukaramji, J. This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “Issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2 nd respondent in issuing a letter dated 03.09.205, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also in contravention of Apex Court judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation and consequently direct the 2 nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of Passport to the petitioner as per law……...” 2.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition has been instituted being aggrieved by the communication dated 03.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.2/the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), whereby the petitioner’s request for renewal of his passport was withheld on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case. 2.2. It is further averred that, in response to the RPO’s communication dated 03.09.2025, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 19.09.2025, asserting that the criminal case registered against him was false and vindictive in nature, and that the matter was likely to be amicably settled before the Lok Adalat. He further stated that he possesses no criminal antecedents, has maintained a good travel record, and seeks renewal of his passport to undertake religious travel to Saudi Arabia. However, it is contended that the RPO, without duly considering the explanation furnished, informed the petitioner that unless the pending criminal case was quashed or the petitioner was acquitted, his passport could not be renewed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. 3.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the issue raised herein is no longer res integra. He draws the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in Ashith Ragi v. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi (W.P. No. 11927 of 2025, decided on 24.04.2025), wherein this Court categorically held that refusal to issue or renew a passport solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, in the absence of conviction, is arbitrary and contrary to law. 3.2. 3.2. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2020) Crl. L.J. (SC) 572], wherein the Apex Court held that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute bar to the issuance or renewal of a passport, unless the competent criminal court has specifically restricted the applicant’s right to obtain one. 3.3. On the strength of these judicial pronouncements, learned counsel submits that the action of respondent No.2/RPO in withholding the renewal of the petitioner’s passport merely due to the pendency of a criminal case is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport in accordance with law. 4. I have carefully perused the material on record. 5. The petitioner’s application for renewal of passport was withheld by respondent No.2/RPO on the ground that a criminal case, bearing Crime No. 399 of 2018, is pending against him before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, arising out of Narayanaguda Police Station. 6. The petitioner asserts that despite his reply dated 10.09.2025 to the RPO, he was informed that renewal of his passport could be considered only upon production of a final judgment of acquittal, thereby imposing a precondition not warranted by law. However, from the pleadings, it is evident that no formal or reasoned order has been passed by respondent No.2/RPO to that effect. 7. In this context, it is necessary to clarify that though the pendency of a criminal case does not ipso facto operate as an absolute bar to renewal of a passport, the process is governed by the statutory framework under the PASSPORT ACT , 1967, and the Government of India Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993. 8. Under Section 6(2)(f) of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967, the Passport Authority may refuse to issue or renew a passport if proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court in India, unless the applicant obtains permission from the court where such proceedings are pending. 9. 8. Under Section 6(2)(f) of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967, the Passport Authority may refuse to issue or renew a passport if proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court in India, unless the applicant obtains permission from the court where such proceedings are pending. 9. The Notification G.S.R. 570(E) carves out a statutory exemption, permitting the issuance or renewal of a passport to such applicants, provided they produce either (i) a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or (ii) an order of permission from the competent court allowing renewal during the pendency of the criminal case. 10. In light of the above statutory scheme, the standard procedure for an individual facing pending criminal proceedings to seek renewal of passport is as follows: i) The applicant must file a formal application before the concerned trial court seeking issuance of an NOC for renewal of the passport. ii) Upon such application, the court shall notify the prosecution and afford it an opportunity to submit objections, if any. iii) Upon considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the stage of proceedings, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of misuse of the passport, the court shall pass a reasoned order either granting or denying permission. iv) Where an NOC is granted, the court may impose appropriate conditions, such as seeking prior leave for travel abroad, furnishing security, or periodic reporting to authorities. v) The discretion vested in the trial court must be exercised consistent with the presumption of innocence, ensuring that denial of an NOC remains an exception justified only by potential obstruction to the administration of justice. vi) Once the NOC or court order is produced, the Passport Authority is bound to process the renewal application in accordance with law. 11. Consequently, in every case where renewal is withheld under Section 6(2)(f), the proper course for the applicant is first to seek permission from the trial court and only thereafter approach the Passport Authority. 12. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI [(2020) Crl. L.J. (SC) 572], affirmed that unless there exists a specific statutory prohibition or an adverse order of the competent court, mere pendency of a criminal case cannot constitute a valid ground to deny renewal or issuance of a passport. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI [(2020) Crl. L.J. (SC) 572], affirmed that unless there exists a specific statutory prohibition or an adverse order of the competent court, mere pendency of a criminal case cannot constitute a valid ground to deny renewal or issuance of a passport. The Court emphasized that refusal solely on such grounds would be arbitrary and contrary to the beneficial object of the 1993 Notification. 13. Similarly, this Court in Ashith Ragi v. Union of India (W.P. No. 11927 of 2025, decided on 24.04.2025) reiterated that possession of a passport does not, by itself, entitle the holder to travel abroad, as the power to impose travel restrictions lies with the criminal court. Thus, while renewal of a passport cannot be refused solely due to the pendency of proceedings, travel may still be regulated by imposing appropriate conditions or requiring prior leave of the concerned court. Accordingly, unless renewal would obstruct or delay the due course of justice, the normal rule should be to permit renewal, subject to reasonable conditions, thereby upholding the liberal and reformative intent underlying the 1993 Notification. 14. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sannith Reddy Mandhadi v. Union of India and another (W.P. No. 2422 of 2024, decided on 26.02.2024) held that The Court reaffirmed that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot operate as an absolute bar to issuance or renewal of a passport. Instead, the Court adopted a balanced approach, ensuring protection of the petitioner’s constitutional right to travel (Article 21), and safeguarding the interests of justice by requiring court supervision and undertakings. Further directed that the passport be renewed subject to undertakings and deposit before the trial court, the Court harmonized individual liberty with the judicial control necessary during pendency of criminal proceedings. 15. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Others [ (1998) 8 SCC 1 ] authoritatively held that although the High Court normally does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, the existence of such remedy is not an absolute bar. The Court delineated three well-recognized exceptions wherein writ jurisdiction may still be exercised: (i) where the writ is filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; or (ii) where there has been violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or the vires of an Act is challenged. 16. In the present case, since the petitioner’s request for renewal was withheld by the RPO citing pendency of criminal proceedings, the proper course available to him was to approach the concerned trial court and seek leave or an NOC for renewal of his passport. Instead, he directly invoked the writ jurisdiction, citing religious urgency and asserting absence of criminal antecedents or misuse of passport. However, apart from such general assertions, the petitioner has failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and the statutory framework, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of exceptional contingencies, the petitioner is directed to approach the trial court before which the criminal case is pending and file an appropriate application seeking an NOC or permission for renewal of his passport. Upon such filing, the concerned trial court shall consider the application in light of the settled legal principles and precedents and pass a reasoned order as per law, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of filing of such application. 18. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of . No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed.