Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1260 (TS)

Thirumani Nagaraju v. Union of India

2025-10-17

N.TUKARAMJI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS against the 2nd respondent in refusing to reissue/renew the passport of the petitioner by issuing the impugned notice dated 17-09-2025 on account of pendency of the Cr.No.553/2021 U/s 186, 353, 506, 147 r/w 149 IPC of Medipally PS. This case is under PT vide CC. No. 10087/2021 at IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar as the same is illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and the against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order dated 17-09-2025 vide letter reference no. OBJ/1050097133/25 and direct the Respondent No.2 to reissue/ renew the passport vide P2619543……...” 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition has been instituted, being aggrieved by the communication dated 17.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2-the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), whereby the petitioner’s request for renewal of his passport was withheld on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. 2.2. It is further submitted that this Court, while dealing with an analogous issue 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), 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. Accordingly, it is contended that the action of respondent No.2/RPO in withholding renewal of the petitioner’s passport merely on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to renew his passport in accordance with law. 3. I have carefully perused the material on record. 4. 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. 553 of 2021, is pending against him before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, arising out of Medipally Police Station. 5. 3. I have carefully perused the material on record. 4. 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. 553 of 2021, is pending against him before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, arising out of Medipally Police Station. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI , (2020) Cri. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 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. 13. 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. 14. In the present case, since the petitioner’s request for renewal of passport was withheld by the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, the appropriate course available to the petitioner was to approach the concerned trial court and seek leave or obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for renewal of the passport. Instead, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing urgency and asserting that he has no criminal antecedents and has never misused his passport. However, apart from such general averments, the petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the statutory framework, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any exceptional contingencies, the petitioner shall first 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. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and the statutory framework, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any exceptional contingencies, the petitioner shall first 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 judicial precedents, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within four weeks from the date of filing of such application. 16. 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.