ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner, a medical practitioner holding an M.D. in Internal Medicine, who is managing Dr. Bhargavi Diabetes Center at Vijayawada, applied for renewal of her passport bearing No. 27880151 under File No. VJ2077360341525 dated 31.01.2025 before the passport authorities at Vijayawada. The authorities, by the notice dated 21.02.2025, impugned in this Writ Petition, declined to process the Application and required her to obtain prior permission from the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 3546 of 2021. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is before this Court for a declaration that impugned action violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 1.1. It is stated, during police verification, it was reported that Crime No. 126 of 2006 of S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, had culminated in filing of charge sheet and was pending as C.C. No. 3546 of 2021 before the Court of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Based on this report, the 3 rd respondent issued communication dated 30.05.2023 seeking clarification from petitioner regarding pendency of criminal case. Petitioner is stated to have submitted the detailed explanation dated 06.06.2023 that she became aware of the criminal proceedings only during police verification process. Upon approaching the trial Court for a certified copy of the charge sheet, she was informed that original case file was missing from the court records. She thereafter, filed an Application seeking her discharge from the case and another Application seeking ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of passport renewal. However, due to non-availability of the case file, no orders have been passed on either Application. The docket entries available on e-Courts portal reflect that the file remains untraceable. 1.2. As the renewal Application dated 17.02.2023 was not acted upon, petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 12922 of 2022. By order dated 02.07.2024, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to process the Application without raising objections on the basis of pendency of C.C. No. 3546 of 2021. By order dated 02.07.2024, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to process the Application without raising objections on the basis of pendency of C.C. No. 3546 of 2021. The Court clarified that prior permission from the criminal Court would be required only if petitioner intended to travel abroad and that she should remain available for appearance before the trial court as and when required. 1.3. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent renewed petitioner’s passport only for a limited period of one year from 02.08.2024 to 01.08.2025 and issued passport bearing No. 27880151. Thereafter, she submitted the present Application. In response, the Authorities issued the letter dated 10.02.2025 again seeking clarification regarding pendency of criminal case. Petitioner, it is stated, personally appeared before the 3 rd respondent on 21.02.2025 and clarified that all the relevant documents had already been submitted earlier, and that the limited renewal granted earlier itself demonstrated acknowledgment of pending proceedings, hence, requested that this Application be treated as continuation of the earlier renewal process. 1.4. Despite the above, the impugned notice was issued. Challenging the said notice, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6241 of 2025 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. By order dated 18.03.2025, the Writ Petition was disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2024 dated 29.10.2024, interpreting Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. It is the specific case of petitioner, despite pendency of the same criminal case, her passport was renewed in 2013 without objection. 1.5. Petitioner contends that she was granted U.S. visa dated 28.10.2022 and received several international professional invitations, including from the American Diabetes Association and an invitation dated 20.02.2024 to attend the Research at Nutrition 2025 conference scheduled from 31.05.2025 to 03.06.2025 at Orlando, Florida. The limited renewal of her passport has adversely affected her ability to obtain visas and participate in international conferences, laments petitioner. 1.6. According to petitioner, charge sheet was filed with unexplained delay of nearly fifteen years and non-availability of case file resulted in delay in concluding the case. She submits that mere pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly in the absence of conviction or any express statutory prohibition, cannot constitute a valid ground for refusal of renewal of a passport. 1.6. According to petitioner, charge sheet was filed with unexplained delay of nearly fifteen years and non-availability of case file resulted in delay in concluding the case. She submits that mere pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly in the absence of conviction or any express statutory prohibition, cannot constitute a valid ground for refusal of renewal of a passport. Relying on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and judicial precedents in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048, petitioner asserts that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and that renewal of a passport cannot be denied on the sole ground of pendency of a criminal case. 2. In the counter, respondents stated that during verification, police authorities submitted an adverse report that petitioner was arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 3546 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad; however, she suppressed existence of the said criminal proceedings while submitting the Application. Hence, respondent office issued show-cause notice dated 30.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12922 of 2024. Pursuant to the directions vide order dated 02.07.2024 and in accordance with the extant rules governing issuance of passports, the 3 rd respondent issued passport bearing No. 27880151 on 02.08.2024 with limited validity of one year i.e., up to 01.08.2025. 2.1. It is further stated, petitioner again applied for renewal of her under File No. VJ2077360341525 dated 31.01.2025, without disclosing pendency of criminal proceedings. Subsequently, the police authorities submitted another adverse verification report mentioning that criminal case was pending. Since petitioner suppressed pendency of criminal case, the 3 rd respondent again issued show-cause notice dated 10.02.2025 for which petitioner submitted explanation on 21.02.2025. On consideration of which, the 3 rd respondent passed the impugned order directing her to obtain prior permission from the competent criminal Court to enable renewal of passport in accordance with the applicable rules. 2.2. Instead of complying with the said advice, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6241 of 2025 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed her to approach the appropriate Court by filing an Application for redressal of her grievance. Despite the said direction, she has chosen to file the present Writ Petition. 2.2. Instead of complying with the said advice, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6241 of 2025 wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed her to approach the appropriate Court by filing an Application for redressal of her grievance. Despite the said direction, she has chosen to file the present Writ Petition. According to respondents, the impugned action was taken strictly in accordance with the extant rules and regulations governing issuance and renewal of passports. It is asserted, responsibility lies upon petitioner to seek discharge from the charges in C.C. No. 3546 of 2021 for further processing of her passport application. 2.3. Respondents rely upon the Notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, which mandates that persons against whom criminal cases are pending must produce orders from the Court where such cases are pending, permitting them to depart from the country. In the present case, petitioner is required to furnish permission from the competent criminal Court where C.C. No. 3546 of 2021 is pending for further processing of passport renewal application. On these grounds, it is contended that Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Sri Sathakarni K., learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Hardik Shah v. Union of India, AIR 2022 MP 57 and the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport Officer , W.P.No. 1190 of 2024 . 4. Heard Sri A. Nehru, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government. 5. A perusal of the material on record shows that petitioner is a passport holder since 2004, her passport was renewed in 2013 notwithstanding pendency of the same criminal case and pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2024 in Writ Petition No. 12922 of 2022, respondents themselves renewed the passport in 2024 with limited validity. It is also not disputed that charge sheet in Crime No. 126 of 2006 was filed after fifteen years and that the case file is presently untraceable. It is to be seen, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order dated 02.07.2024 categorically held that prior permission would be required only if petitioner intends to travel abroad and not as a condition precedent for renewal of passport. It is to be seen, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order dated 02.07.2024 categorically held that prior permission would be required only if petitioner intends to travel abroad and not as a condition precedent for renewal of passport. Respondents, having acted upon the said order and renewed the passport in 2024, cannot now take the same objection in respect of the subsequent renewal Application, particularly when the factual situation remains unchanged. 6. Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act empowers the Authority to refuse issuance of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending, but the provision has been consistently interpreted by constitutional Courts to require a reasonable, proportionate, and non-arbitrary exercise of discretion. The judgments referred to supra in Maneka Gandhi and Satish Chandra Verma’s cases make it clear that it is the fundamental right of a person to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per his/her wish under Article 21 and that restrictions must be just, fair, and reasonable. In the present case, there is no allegation that petitioner violated any court order, attempted to abscond or misused her passport. On the contrary, the material placed on record demonstrates her continuous residence, professional engagement and compliance with legal processes. 7. Though respondents relied on the Notification dated 25.08.1993, this Court is of the view that the same cannot override the constitutional mandate or the binding judicial directions issued in the Writ Petitions filed by petitioner earlier, in view of the judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner, stated supra. In Hardik Shah’s case , it has been held that ‘a plain reading of this judgment make it clear that various Division Benches of Bombay High Court has taken consistent view that aforesaid Gazette Notification is not an impediment for renewing the passport for a period of 10 years. Indeed, it was observed that the Government is duty bound to follow the principles and directions laid down in the previous judgments and renew passports for a period of ten years.’ In Karti P. Chidambaram’s case , it has been observed as under: …….para 84 to 88 8. Indeed, it was observed that the Government is duty bound to follow the principles and directions laid down in the previous judgments and renew passports for a period of ten years.’ In Karti P. Chidambaram’s case , it has been observed as under: …….para 84 to 88 8. On the other hand, learned Central Government Standing Counsel relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 829 of 2024 wherein it has been held that the direction to renew the passport in contravention of the statutory provision i.e. Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence, liberty was reserved to the party to approach criminal Court for expeditious disposal of the cases pending against him. Here, in the instant case, somewhat peculiar circumstances exist. In the crime of 2006, charge sheet was filed in 2021 without explaining the extraordinary delay of 15 years. Further, when petitioner filed an Application seeking issuance of certified copy of the charge sheet, the Section concerned of the trial Court expressed its inability to issue the same citing that the case file was missing from the Court records. Then, petitioner filed an Application to discharge her from the said case and another Application to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ for passport renewal in 2023 itself, however owing to non-availability of the main case file, no orders have been passed and both the Applications are pending consideration. In those circumstances, respondents insisting on prior court permission as a condition precedent for renewal amounts to unreasonable restriction on petitioner’s personal liberty. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 12922 of 2024, by order dated 02.07.2024 directed petitioner’s renewal Application be processed and her passport be renewed without raising any objection on the ground of pending criminal case and pursuant to the said direction, respondents renewed the passport for one year which is nothing but clear misinterpretation of the order. 9. Here, it is apt to note the Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35056 of 2023, wherein, in similar circumstances, it was directed that respondent authorities shall consider the Application for issuance of passport on certain conditions. 10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice dated 21.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. 11. 10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice dated 21.02.2025 is liable to be set aside. 11. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed, setting aside the notice dated 21.02.2025. Respondents are directed to renew petitioner’s passport bearing No. 27880151 pursuant to File No. VJ2077360341525 dated 31.01.2025 in accordance with law, for the normal period of ten years. Petitioner shall file an Application before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad and it is for the learned Magistrate to consider the same in accordance with law. No costs. 12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.