Ram Reddy Pagilla Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

Ram Reddy Pagilla Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to apply to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal for a 'No Objection Certificate' (to be decided preferably within one week); upon furnishing the NOC, Respondent No.2 to consider reissue/renewal of the passport in accordance with law; NOC not to be treated as permission to travel abroad (separate application required for foreign travel during pendency); no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether mere arraignment/pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner can be a ground for the passport authority to deny renewal of his passport. +1 more

Court's answer

It is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, be a ground to refuse issuance of a passport.

Ratio / Principle

Since no material showed that the petitioner had sought a No Objection Certificate, the Court directed him to approach the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal with an application for a 'No Objection Certificate'; the trial court shall pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within one week, and upon the petitioner furnishing the NOC, the passport authority shall consider the same for reissuing/renewing the passport in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The NOC issued by the trial court for obtaining the passport shall not be construed as a permission to travel abroad.ratio¶47
If the petitioner intends to travel abroad during pendency of the criminal proceedings, he must file a separate application seeking permission to travel abroad specifying the duration of travel, which the trial court shall consider on its own merits by imposing appropriate conditions in accordance with law.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka), 06.03.2026 - W.P.No.1480 of 2026 (Ram Reddy Pagilla v. Union of India, Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad & Anr.): The Regional Passport Officer declined to renew the petitioner's passport (File No. HYG076374185724 dated 19.03.2024) because of criminal proceedings pending against him (Crime No.120 of 2018, Sections 506, 447, 427 IPC, PS Pochampally; C.C.No.1282 of 2021, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal). Holding that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot by itself be a ground to refuse issuance of a passport, and following the Division Bench order in W.A.No.194 of 2026 dated 17.02.2026 (which interpreted GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and the Ministry of External Affairs Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019), the Court directed the petitioner to seek a 'No Objection Certificate' from the trial court, to be decided expeditiously (preferably within one week); upon furnishing the NOC the passport authority is to consider reissue/renewal in accordance with law. The NOC is expressly not a permission to travel abroad; a separate application specifying the duration of travel is required for foreign travel during the pendency of the criminal case. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

[^33oo ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF TUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 1480 OF 2026

Between:

Ram Reddy Pagilla, S/o Yadi Reddy Pagilla, Aged about 49 Years, Occ: Self Employeed, R/o H.No. 4-107, Dothigudem, Jiblakpally, Pochampally, Yadadri Bhongir District'

...PETrrroNER

AND

Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Pariyala House, Annex, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-1 10 001 .

The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

Madduri Sree Gouri, Wo Ravichandra, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Household, Rl/o H.No.3-50, Plot No.84, Gayathri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Ranga ReddY District

...RESP.NDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not renewing Petitioners Passport bearing No. L73'121O52 pursuant to the application bearing fite No. HYG076374185724 dated 19-03-2024 on the ground of pending criminal proceedings bearing in Crime No. 120 of 2018 Under Section 506, 447, 427 IPC of PS Pochampally vide C.C.No. 1282 of 2021 On the file of Judicial First Class lv'lagistrate at Choutuppal, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and contrary to provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to renew Petitioner passport bearing No. L7314052 on the basls of the - i'application bearing File HYG076374185724 dated '19-03-2024 without any refence to the said Criminal proceedings bearing Crime No. 120 of 2018 Under Section 506, 447, 427 IPC of PS Pochampally vide C.C.No. 1282 of 2021.

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct} the Respondent No.2 to consider the^{Petitioner's application vide FileNo-} HYG076374185724 dated 19-03-2024^{for renewalof Petitioner's Passport bearing} No. L7314052 without any reference^{to criminal proceedings ln CrimeNo. 120 of} 2018 Under Section 506,447,427 IPC of^{PS Pochampally vide C.C.No.1282of} 2021 On the file of Judicial First Class l\ilagistrate^{at Choutuppal, pending disposal} of the main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD.CHAND^PASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l &^2: SRI^{ADITHYA CHINTAPANTI, SC FOR} CENTRAL GOVT.

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT }TYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.148O of 2026

06.o3.2026

Between:

Ram Reddy Pagilla

...Petitioner

AND

Union of India,

Represented by its under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Pariyala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi and 2 olhers

...Respondents

ORDER:

The petitioner made an application to the respondent-Passport File authority seeking reneu,al of passport uide No.HYG07637 4185724, dated 19.O3.2024; however, the passport authority refused [o renew the same on the ground that the police verihcation revealed adverse report stating that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner in Crime No.120 of 2018 of Pochampally Police Station and the case is pending trial uide C.C-No. 1282 ol 2O2l on the hle of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal.

--

:*

\BK.J \P l-130 1016

Heard l{r.Mcl.Chand Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Adithya Chintapanti, iearned Standing Counsel for Central Government, for respondent l{os.1 and 2. Perused the recorcl.

Learned counsel for petitioner submiLs lhat mere arraignment of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground for denial of passport. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.321 1 of 2026, dated 04.02.'2026.

Learncd Standing Counsel, by refcrring to Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministrv of External Affairs, submits that in view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the petit-ioner is required to approach the concerned trial Court for necessary NOC/ permission to obtain passport, and thereafter furnish the same before the' passport authoriff for considering issuance of passport. In the instant case, the petitioner has not furnished NOC/permission from the trial Court and therefore there is no illegality in relusing to renew the passport.

Having considered the respective submissions, at the outset, it is settled iaw that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refusc issuance of passport. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hontrle Division Bench of

\BK.] \P llsc 2016

this Court in W.A.No.194 of^{2026, dated 17.02.2026, rvhereinthe}

Division Bench has observed^{as follows:}

" 13. In the light of the^{principlelaid down by the Apex} Court concerning the interpretation^{of GSR570(E)} dated 25.08- 1993 and Office^{Memorandum dated} 10.10.2019, we are of the considered^{view that the} appellant should make^{an appiication for seekingNOC} from the concerned trial^{courtswhere criminalcases} are pending against^{him. It is uponissuanceof NOC} that the appellant^{shouldfrle an applicationfor} renewal of the^{passport.In case the courts prescribea} penod for which the^passport is to^{be issued, the} passport authority should honour^{that period.} btherwise, if it does not^{stipulate alry period,the} notification prowides default^{rules,including issuance} for a shorter penod, ordinarily^{one year,in} appropriate cases."

In the instant case, there is^{no materialplaced on record to} sho,". that the petitioner^{filed an applicationbeforethe concerned trial} Court seeking a "No Objection^{Certihcate" for obtaining of passport'In} view of the pending criminal^{proceedings against the petitioner in} C.C.No.1282 of 2O2l on^{the file of learneU Judicial First Class} Magistrate at Choutuppai,^{this Court deems it appropriateto direct} the petitioner to approach^{the court of learned JudicialFirst class} Magistrate at Choutuppal^{and make an appropriate application} seeking a "No Objection^{Certihcate"for obtaining passport'Upon Iiling} such application, the concerned^{trial Court shall consider the same} and pass appropriate orders^{expeditiously, preferablywithin one week} from the date of hling^{of such appiication. Upon furnishing the NOC} by the petitioner, the^{passportauthorityshall considerthe same for} reissuing/ renewing^{of passport in accordancewith law'}

\.p uSt) tot6

It is macle cle:rr- thar the NOC rhat may be issued by the trial court to the petitic,ner for obtaining passport shall not be construed as a permission tc travel abroad. [n case the petitioner intends to travcl abroad cluring pendency of criminal proceedings, the petitioner sl-rall hle a separate applicarion seeking permission to travel abroad, by specifying the duration of travel, and the trial Court shall consider such application on its own merits, by imposing appropriate conditions in accordancc with law. Needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law to secure the presence of the petitioner in case of violation of any ol the conditions so imposed u'hile granting abro:rd travel permission.

Accordingly, the Writ^petition is disposed of u.ith the above said directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed.

SD/- C.DEEPIKA S STANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, IVlinistry of AN{ernal Affairs, Pariyala House, Annex, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-1 10 001^.

The Regional Passport Officer, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

One CC to SRI IVD.CHAND PASHA, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to SRI ADITHYA CHINTAPANTI, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. loPUCl

Two CD Copies

PSK

TKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610312026

ORDER

WP.No.1480^{of 2026}

n i'r,
.fi,ifr;
,,..,
..,.j 2 I rr AB lft2
t
*

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

@
u
<br>