Smt. Rajasri Chidurala Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

Smt. Rajasri Chidurala 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 approach the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanamkonda with an application seeking a No Objection Certificate for obtaining passport; trial Court to consider and pass orders expeditiously, preferably within one week; upon furnishing the NOC, the passport authority (respondent No.2) to consider reissue/renewal of passport in accordance with law; NOC not to be construed as permission to travel abroad (separate application required for foreign travel during pendency, with appropriate conditions); no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No.2 in not issuing the passport facility to the petitioner pursuant to passport application file No.HY8065733384725, despite furnishing all necessary documents, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether respondent No.2 should be directed to issue the passport. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

At the outset, it is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance of a passport.

Key takeaways

There is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner filed an application before the concerned trial Court seeking a No Objection Certificate for obtaining passport; in view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1716 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hanamkonda, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach that Court and make an appropriate application seeking a No Objection Certificate for obtaining passport.ratio¶48
Upon filing such application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within one week from the date of filing of such application.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) - Passport - Withholding of passport by Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad (file No.HY8065733384725, dt.07.10.2025) on the ground of adverse police verification owing to pendency of criminal proceedings (Crime No.393 of 2022, Hasanparthy Police Station; trial as C.C.No.1716 of 2024 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanamkonda). Held: it is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to refuse issuance of passport; as per the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.194 of 2026 (dt.17.02.2026), in light of the principle concerning GIS 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, an applicant against whom criminal cases are pending must first seek a No Objection Certificate from the concerned trial Court, and the passport authority must honour any period prescribed by the Court (failing which default rules apply, ordinarily one year). No material on record showed the petitioner had applied for such NOC. Directions: petitioner to apply to the Hanamkonda trial Court for NOC; trial Court to pass orders expeditiously, preferably within one week; upon furnishing NOC, passport authority to consider reissue/renewal in accordance with law; NOC is not permission to travel abroad - a separate application is required for foreign travel during pendency, to be considered on merits with appropriate conditions, and the trial Court to secure the petitioner's presence in case of violation. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.